Here are the materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):
News coverage here.
sovereign immunity
Second Circuit Briefs in Gambling Addict’s Suit against Foxwoods
Qui Tam Action against Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute Tribes Dismissed
Here is the order in United States ex rel. Howard v. Shoshone Paiute Tribes (D. Nev.):
2012-12-27 Order Dismissing Case
Briefs are here.
D.C. Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Cherokee Freedmen Suit against Cherokee Officials
Here is today’s opinion in Vann v. Dept. of Interior: CADC Opinion
An excerpt:
Applying the precedents that permit suits against government officials in their official capacities, we conclude that this suit may proceed against the Principal Chief in his official capacity, without the Cherokee Nation itself as a party.
The Freedmen have sued the Principal Chief in his official capacity under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123. The Ex parte Young doctrine allows suits for declaratory and injunctive relief against government officials in their official capacities – notwithstanding the sovereign immunity possessed by the government itself. The Ex parte Young doctrine applies to Indian tribes as well. Cf. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 498 U.S. at 514; see generally Larson, 337 U.S. at 689-92; RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., DANIEL J. MELTZER & DAVID L. SHAPIRO, HART AND WECHSLER’S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 958-60 (5th ed. 2003).
Briefs are here.
Contour Spa at the Hard Rock v. Seminole Tribe Cert Stage Briefing Complete
Here:
No Conference date has been set for this petition.
Bay Mills Indian Community Brief in Opposition to Michigan Cert Petition in Vanderbilt Casino Suit
Seminole Tribe Brief in Opposition to Contour Spa Cert Petition
Seventh Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Martin Webb Payday Lending Company’s Forum Selection Clause
Supreme Court Denies Cert in Dram Shop Immunity Action Involving Miccosukee Tribe
Ninth Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity from Antitrust Claims relating to Tribal Tax Agreement
Here is the opinion and materials in Miller v. Wright.
The court’s syllabus:
Affirming the district court’s dismissal of an antitrust action brought by cigarette vendors challenging taxes imposed by virtue of the authority vested in an Indian tribe, the panel held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in light of the tribe’s sovereign immunity. The panel held that the tribe did not implicitly waive its sovereign immunity by agreeing to dispute resolution procedures nor by ceding its authority to Washington State when entering into a cigarette tax contract. The panel also held that federal antitrust law did not explicitly abrogate tribal immunity, and the Sherman Antitrust Act was not a law of general applicability vis-a-vis the tribe. The panel held that tribal officials were protected by the tribe’s sovereign immunity because they acted pursuant to the tribe’s authority. The panel also affirmed the district court’s alternative ruling that the action was barred by res judicata in light of prior litigation in state and tribal courts.
Here are the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.