Here are the new materials in State of Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (W.D. Tex.):
431 Pueblo Response to Motion for Contempt
468 Pueblo Motion for Summary J
469 Texas Opposition to Motion for Summary J
470 Pueblo Reply in Support of Motion for Summary J
473 Texas Opposition to Motion to Exclude
477 Pueblo Reply in Support of motion to Exclude
News coverage on the show cause hearing here.
Here are the materials in Estate of Gonzales ex rel. Gonzales v. Brown (N.D. Okla.):
Here:
Question presented:
Whether, in an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., a putative Indian tribe may invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary’s decision to recognize it as a tribe.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition:
Question presented:
Whether an insurance company doing business with a federally recognized American Indian Tribe is entitled to sovereign immunity for the acts and omission it takes in furtherance of the business of insurance.
Wenona Singel and I are delighted and honored to speak at Colorado’s symposium on Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community. Thanks to Rick Collins, Sarah Krakoff, Carla Fredericks, Kristen Carpenter, and the rest of the great people at CU.
In honor of the Michigan-centric character if this symposium, it snowed in Boulder.
I am honored to share the stage with Kathryn Tierney, the general counsel for the Bay Mills Indian Community. She is a legend, going back to her work on the LCO treaty rights cases in Wisconsin, the LeBlanc matter in Michigan, and United States v. Michigan. Wenona and I know her from the more calmer days of negotiating the Michigan tax agreements a decade ago.
I’ll be patching together a short talk about lessons we can learn from the decision from the successful strategic moves made by Bay Mills.
Here are the updated materials in State of Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe (D. Idaho):
35 DCT Order Staying Proceedings
An excerpt:
The Court has before it Defendant Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 15) and Plaintiff the State of Idaho’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkts. 3, 4). The Court previously stayed this lawsuit based on the Tribe’s argument that the parties had agreed to arbitrate this dispute. See June 23, 2014 Order, Dkt. 35. Afterward, the Tribe changed its mind and decided it would prefer to litigate. The Court will therefore address the pending motions. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will deny the Tribe’s motion to dismiss and grant the State’s motion for injunctive relief.
Here is the order in Flute v. United States (D. Colo.):
An excerpt:
In the absence of an enforceable trust, 25 U.S.C. §§ 162a(d) and 4044 do not impose a legally required duty necessary to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity under the APA. See Norton, 542 U.S. at 63–64. Furthermore, plaintiffs’ claims do not concern “losses to or mismanagement of trust funds” and thus do not fall within the 2009 DOI Appropriations Act. See Pub.L. No. 111–88, 123 Stat. at 2922. Finding that the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for this suit, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims and must dismiss them without prejudice. See Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir.2006) ( “[W]here the district court dismisses an action for lack of jurisdiction … the dismissal must be without prejudice.”).
Briefs here. Other materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.