Here are the materials in Diné Citizens against Ruining Our Environment v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (D. Colo.):
News coverage here.
Posts on prior motion to dismiss and motion to intervene.
sovereign immunity
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Held in Contempt over Gaming
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Affirms Tribal Immunity
Here are the opinions in First Bank and Trust v. Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes:
Here are the briefs:
2-13-13 Motion for Leave to Supplement the Appeal Record
10-2-13 Special Appearance Joint Notice of Supplemental Authority
10-30-12 Special Appearance, Joint Brief-in-Chief of the Tribes and the Executive Branch
11-21-12 First Bank and Trust Company’s Answer Brief and Brief-in-Chief on Counter-Appeal
12-7-12 Special Appearance, Joint Reply Brief and Answer Brief to Brief-in-Chief on Counter-Appeal
12-13-12 Joint Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal
12-19-12 First Bank and Trust Company’s Waiver of Right to File Reply Brief
12-24-13 Special Appearance Notice of Supplemental Authority
Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Quinault Lease under Rule 19, Sovereign Immunity
Here are the materials in Comenout v. Whitener (W.D. Wash.):
25 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
An excerpt:
The Nation is an indispensible party under Rule 19(b). As discussed above, a judgment in Comenout’s favor would prejudice the Nation’s contractual rights under the lease. Comenout also cannot be accorded complete relief in the Nation’s absence because any injunction would not be binding on the Nation. Further, the relief sought by Comenout cannot be shaped to lessen the potential prejudice to either Comenout or the Nation. Partial relief is also inadequate, because the Nation could still attempt to enforce its rights to use the property for commercial purposes as the lessee.
Federal Court Applies Sherrill Defenses, Tribal Immunity to Dismiss Wolfchild Statutory Land Claims
Here is the order in Wolfchild v. Redwood County (D. Minn.):
196 DCT Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
The Court finds no basis upon which to distinguish this case from those asserted in Sherrill or Stockbridge. It is clear that Plaintiffs’ claims flow from the 1863 Act. It is also clear that the land at issue here was sold to third parties no later than 1895. See Wolfchild IX, 731 F.3d at 1293. Plaintiffs’ claims are thus like those described in Stockbridge: “Indian land claims asserted generations after an alleged dispossession that are inherently disruptive of state and local governance and the settled expectations of current landowners and are subject to dismissal on the basis of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility.” Id. 756 F.3d at 165.
There is no language in Sherrill or Stockbridge that would limit the holdings of those decisions to claims based on aboriginal title.
Based on the particular characteristics and history of the claims at issue here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are equitably barred. Application of the equitable bar set forth inSherrill does not require a balancing of equities between the parties. Instead, the equitable bar focuses on Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking relief, and the disruption that would result to settled and justified expectations regarding land ownership. Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 216‐17, 221(finding that “the Oneidasʹ long delay in seeking equitable relief against New York or its local units, and developments in the city of Sherrill spanning several generations, evoke the doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, and render inequitable the piecemeal shift in governance this suit seeks unilaterally to initiate”).
Briefs are here.
Massachusetts Gaming Claims against Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Survive Motions to Dismiss; Counterclaims Do, Too
Here are the updated materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):
65 Massachusetts Opposition to Rule 19 Motion
67 Aquinnah-Gay Head Community Opposition to 11th Amendment Motion to Dismiss
71 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Rule 19 Motion
72 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss on Immunity Grounds
77 Massachusetts Motion to Dismiss
86 Massachusetts Officials Motion to Dismiss
87 Wampanoag Tribe Opposition to Massachusetts Immunity Motion
95 DCT Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
An excerpt:
This lawsuit involves a dispute between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a federally recognized Indian tribe concerning regulatory jurisdiction over civil gaming on Indian lands on Martha’s Vineyard. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and related entities have taken steps to commence commercial gaming operations on tribal lands without a license from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth contends that operating gaming facilities without such a license would violate a 1983 settlement agreement that subjects the lands in question to state civil and criminal jurisdiction (and thus subjects them to state laws regulating gaming). Count 1 of the complaint alleges breach of contract, and Count 2 seeks a declaratory judgment.
The Commonwealth filed suit in state court on December 2, 2013. On December 30, 2013, the Tribe removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. On August 6, 2014, the Court granted motions to intervene by the Town of Aquinnah and the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association (“AGHCA”). The Tribe has moved to dismiss the AGHCA complaint on the basis of sovereign immunity and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; it has further moved to dismiss all three complaints (with leave to amend) for failure to join the United States as a required party.
On October 24, 2014, the Tribe filed an amended answer that included a counterclaim against the Commonwealth and counterclaims against three third-party defendants (all of whom are officials of the Commonwealth). Plaintiff and third-party defendants have moved to dismiss the counterclaims on the grounds of sovereign immunity (as to the counterclaims against the Commonwealth) and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For the reasons stated below, the motions of the Tribe will be denied and the motion of counterclaim-defendants will be granted in part and denied in part.
We posted motions to dismiss here. Materials on the state court removal and remand motions here. Complaint here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Bodi v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians — Whether Removal To Federal Court Waives Immunity
State of Michigan Sues Sault Tribe Officials–Amended Complaint with Exhibits
2Exhibit A (Letter from DOI)
Exhibit B (letter from Gov. Snyder to Chairman Eitrem)
Exhibit C (Sault Tribe Submission for Mandatory Fee-to-Trust Acquisition)
Exhibit D (Same, for the Sibley Parcel)
Exhibit E (Sault Tribe approval of development agreement with Lansing, MI)
Exhibit F (Comprehensive Development Agreement between Sault Tribe and Lansing)
Previous coverage of the Lansing casino case here.
Amerind Risk Management Corp. v. Blackfeet Housing — Complaint to Compel Arbitration
Supreme Court Cert Opposition Briefs in Stockbridge-Munsee Land Claim
Here (thanks to the Supreme Court Project page):
State of New York Brief in Opposition
Oneida Indian Nation Brief in Opposition
The petition is here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.