Tunica-Biloxi Gaming Authority v. Zaunbrecher Cert Stage Briefs

Here:

Tunica Cert Petn

Question presented:

It is well established that “Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations that exercise inherent sovereign authority. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 509, 111 S.Ct. 905, 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991); Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community,_ U.S._, 134 S.Ct. 2024, 2030, 188 L.Ed.2d 1071 (2014). “Among the core aspects of sovereignty that tribes possess – subject, again, to congressional action – is the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers …. That immunity, we have explained, is a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and selfgovernance.” Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 476 U.S. 877, 890, 106 S.Ct. 2305, 90 L.Ed.2d 881 (1986). 

In Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., supra, this Court explained that the “baseline position … is tribal immunity; and [t]o abrogate [such] immunity, Congress must unequivocally express that purpose …. That rule of construction reflects an enduring principle of Indian law: Although Congress has plenary authority over tribes, courts will not lightly assume that Congress in fact intends to undermine Indian selfgovernment.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 134 S.Ct. at 2031-32.

Cert Opp

Lower court materials here.

Section 1983 Claim against Swinomish Tribal Police Officer Dismissed

Here are the materials in Pearson v. Dept. of Licensing (W.D. Wash.):

24 Tribal Motion to Dismiss

27 Response

30 Reply

33 DCT Order

California Appellate Court Orders Cal. Miwok to Pay Costs in Revenue Sharing Matter

Here is the unpublished opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission (Cal. Ct. App. — 4th Dist.): D068909

An excerpt:

Plaintiff California Valley Miwok Tribe (the Tribe) appeals from the trial court’s award of costs in favor of defendant California Gambling Control Commission (the Commission), following the Commission’s successful summary judgment against the Tribe in its lawsuit seeking an order requiring the Commission to pay over the funds to the Tribe from the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF). The Tribe contends that it is protected by tribal sovereign immunity from incurring any obligation to pay costs to the prevailing defendant in a lawsuit that it initiated. As we will explain, the Tribe’s position lacks merit, and accordingly we affirm the award of costs.

Related materials here.

SCOTUS Petition for Cert in Lewis v. Clarke

Download Petition for Writ of Certiorari (PDF)

Link to briefs previously posted here.

Question Presented: Whether the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment.

New Mexico SCT Affirms Tribal Immunity from Property Claims (UPDATED with briefs)

Here is the opinion in Hamaatsa Inc. v. Pueblo of San Felipe.

An excerpt:

The Pueblo of San Felipe (Pueblo) appeals from an opinion of the New Mexico Court of Appeals declining to extend the Pueblo, an Indian tribe, immunity from suit. Because it is settled federal law that sovereign Indian tribes enjoy immunity from suit in state and federal court—absent waiver or abrogation by Congress—we reverse the Court of Appeals with instructions for the district court to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Lower court decision here.

We would love to post the briefs in this case. Please send along.

Briefs:

Hamaatsa Answer Brief to Tribal Amici

Hamaatsa Answer Brief

Response Brief of Amicus Curiae NMLTA

SF Brief in Chief

SF Reply Brief

SF Reply to NMLTA Amicus Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

Florida Appellate Court Affirms Tribal Corporation’s Immunity from Suit

Here is the opinion in MMG LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida Inc.

An excerpt:

MMMG, LLC and Mobile Mike Promotions, Inc. appeal the involuntary dismissal of their complaint against a federal tribal corporation affiliated with the Seminole Tribe. We affirm the dismissal because the tribal corporation enjoyed sovereign immunity from suit, which was not effectively waived according to the procedure required in the corporation’s charter and bylaws.

Given the long history of exploitation of Native Americans, Congress has enacted statutes designed to protect tribes and tribal corporations. These statutes have been construed by federal and Florida courts as placing the onus on the non-tribal party to ensure that any waiver of sovereign immunity be executed in strict compliance with applicable tribal operating documents; common law doctrines such as apparent authority do not override the protection provided by federal law.

Briefs in the case: MMMG’s initial brief, Seminole’s answer, and MMMG’s reply.

Second Circuit Materials in Sun v. Mashantucket

Here are the briefs in Sun v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise:

Sun Opening Brief

Pequot Answer Brief

Robinson Answer Brief

Reply TK

Lower court materials here.

Briefs in Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Immunity Waiver Dispute)

Here:

Findleton Supplemental Brief

Tribe Supplemental Brief

Reply

Shinnecock Indian Nation v. New York Cert Stage Briefs

Here:

Shinnecock Cert Petition

15-1215acFederalIndianLawProfessors

NY Cert Opp

Shinnecock Indian Nation Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

California v. Pauma Cert Stage Briefs

Here are the briefs in California v. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation:

Cal v Pauma Cert Petn

Pauma Cert Opposition Brief

And Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation v. California:

Pauma Cert Petn

California Cert Opposition Brief

Lower court materials here (panel, en banc).