sovereign immunity – Page 99

Issue: (1) Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63, to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law; and (2) whether ICWA defines “parent” in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent.

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Issue: (1) Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin activity that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., but takes place outside of Indian lands; and (2) whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a tribe from violating IGRA outside of Indian lands.

Updated Materials in Miccosukee v. Cypress

December 31, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are motions to dismiss Miccosukee Second Amended Complaint:

Billy Cypress Motion to Dismiss

Dexter Lehtinen Motion to Dismiss

Guy Lewis and Michael Tein Motion to Dismiss

Julio Martinez Motion to Dismiss

Miguel Hernandez Motion to Dismiss

Washington v. Yakama Tribal Court — Dispute over Tribal-State Fuel Tax Agreement

December 29, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):

Washington Complaint

Washington Motion for PI

Yakama Cross Motion

News coverage here.

Second Circuit Briefs in Gambling Addict’s Suit against Foxwoods

December 28, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in Tassone v. Foxwoods Resort Casino:

Tassone Brief

Foxwoods Brief

Qui Tam Action against Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute Tribes Dismissed

December 27, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

December 14, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

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.