Freep (same article in Lansing State Journal and USAToday)
Post-Argument
sovereign immunity
Opening Nooksack COA Brief in Roberts v. Kelly
Contract Breach Claim against Delaware Tribal Officials Survives in Pennsylvania Federal Court
Here are the materials in Magyar v. Kennedy (E.D. Pa.):
31 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Count 1
An excerpt:
Thus, based upon an examination of the Second Amended Complaint and its Exhibits, we determine that Plaintiff has met his burden to convince us that Defendants acted beyond their official capacity and outside the scope of their authority when they terminated Plaintiff’s Agreements and failed to compensate Plaintiff for the services he rendered in June 2012. Accordingly, we conclude that the Second Amended Complaint alleges facts sufficient to persuade us that Defendants are not protected by sovereign immunity in connection with Count One of the Second Amended Complaint.
Briefing Complete in Federal Motion to Dismiss Sand Creek Claims
Here are the briefs in Flute v. United States (D. Colo.):
Flute Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
The complaint is here.
Nooksack Disenrollment Update — New Case Filing, Adams v. Kelly — Briefs in Tribal Court Appeal
Here are the briefs in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):
Lomeli v Kelly Opening Brief of Appellants
Lomeli v Kelly COA Response Brief of Appellees
Lomeli v Kelly COA Reply Brief of Appellants
And a new case filing, Adams v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Ct.):
Adams v Kelly Declaration of Rick D. George Tribal Council Vice Chairman
Fletcher on the Michigan v. Bay Mills Case
Here is (Re)Solving the Tribal No-Forum Conundrum: Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (PDF), published in the Yale Law Journal Online.
The abstract:
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, a dispute over a controversial off-reservation Indian casino, is the latest opportunity for the Supreme Court to address the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. The Court could hand Michigan a big win by broadly abrogating tribal immunity, and in turn wreak havoc on modern tribal governance. Alternately, the Court could hand Bay Mills a victory by affirming the tribe’s immunity, effectively precluding judicial review of the tribe’s casino project. In this Essay, Professor Matthew L.M. Fletcher argues that neither choice is preferable to a third option that would both advance tribal self-determination and hold tribes accountable to outsiders. The Court could condition tribal immunity in federal or state court on whether the tribe has solved the no-forum problem by providing a tribal forum for the resolution of important disputes.
Tribal Court Rejects Effort to Stop Automatic Disenrollment of Nooksack Members in Violation of Court Order
Here are the new materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
Lomeli v Kelly Motion for Order Re Contempt
Lomeli v Kelly Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Order to Show Cause RE Contempt
Lomeli v Kelly Motion for Contempt Reply
Lomeli v Kelly Order Denying Motion for Order to Show Cause
Apparently, four Nooksacks have been automatically disenrolled, since August, in violation of a Stipulation and Order in Lomeli providing that nobody would be disenrolled until all of the hearings were concluded.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.