Here are the pleadings in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida (N.D. Fla.):
37 Seminole Motion for Summary J
38 Florida Motion for Summary J
Motion to dismiss stage pleadings here.
sovereign immunity
SCOTUS Opposition to Cert in Lewis v. Clarke
Lewis v. Clarke is SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day
Cert Petition in Trust Accounting Claim for Sand Creek Descendants
Download petition for a Writ of Certiorari here.
Questions presented:
Whether a treaty promise to pay reparations to a group of Native Americans in the form and amount that is “best adapted to the respected wants and conditions of” said group of Native Americans, and subsequent appropriation of funds by Congress to pay such reparations, create a fiduciary relationship between the United States and said group of Native Americans.
Whether the Administrative Procedures Act waives the United States’ immunity from suit for accounting claims regarding trust mismanagement that begun before the enactment of the Act.
Whether a set of Appropriations Acts by Congress that defer the accrual of trust mismanagement claims against the United States operates as a waiver of the United States’ immunity from suit.
Previous posts in re Flute v. U.S. here.
Tunica-Biloxi Gaming Authority v. Zaunbrecher Cert Stage Briefs
Here:
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.
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.):
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
Response Brief of Amicus Curiae NMLTA
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.