Here:
tribal constitutions
Briefing Schedule in Cherokee Freedmen Case (Now in D.C. Federal District Court)
Update in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar — Updated 9/27/13
The court has issued an opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar (D. D.C.):
From the order:
This matter is before the Court on Intervenor-Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 58, at 2 (Mar. 26, 2012). Intervenor-Defendant also argues that it is a required party but that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, id. at 21; for clarity the Court will construe this argument as a motion to join a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2). Because the Court agrees that Intervenor-Defendant is a required party but not that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, the motion to join a required party is GRANTED. Because the Court finds Intervenor-Defendant’s remaining arguments to be largely — but not entirely — without merit, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Materials are here.
Update — additional materials:
2013 09 20 Motion for Reconsideration
Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Cert Petition
Here is the cert petition in the case now captioned Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Grand Canyon Resort Development Corporation:
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
Questions presented:
1. Does Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) apply on tribal land, as this Court suggested in Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 358 (2001), or does this Court acquiesce in the Ninth Circuit’s contrary decision in Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area v. LaRance, 642 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2011)?
2. Does a non-tribal member consent to tribal jurisdiction under Montana even when that “consent” comes in the form of a contract with a tribal corporation which expressly provides that disputes will be resolved through binding arbitration, not in tribal court, and where the tribal enterprise has expressly waived its sovereign immunity to permit arbitration?
3. Are intangible contract rights of a Nevada corporation located on federal land held in trust for the Tribe and thus subject to the Tribe’s eminent domain powers because they relate to activities on tribal land?
4. Does the bad-faith exception to National Farmers exhaustion require a showing that the tribal court acted in bad faith, or is it sufficient to demonstrate that the Tribe’s governing council (Tribal Council) did so and that the Tribe’s judiciary lacked judicial independence?
Lower court materials here.
Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Paskenta Band Governance
Here are the materials in Swearinger v. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians Tribal Business Council (N.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
Paskenta Band Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs are “enrolled members of the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians,” a federally recognized Indian tribe with “approximately 240 members.” Docket No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13-14. Although Congress revoked PBNI’s status as a federally recognized tribe in 1958, it later restored the tribe’s federally recognized status in 1994 by enacting the Paskenta Band Restoration Act (PBRA), Pub. L. No. 103-454, §§ 301-03, 108 Stat. 4791 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1300m et seq.). Compl. ¶ 21. The PBRA directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an “election for the purpose of adopting a constitution and bylaws for the Tribe.” 25 U.S.C. § 1300m-6. The PBRA further states that, after the tribe adopts a constitution, “such tribal constitution shall govern membership in the Tribe.” Id. § 1300m-4(b).
Nooksack COA Stays Enrollments
Here are the materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.) and Roberts v. Kelly (Nooksack COA):
Roberts v Kelly Order on Motion for Permission to File Interloctory Appeal
Seattle Times Coverage of Nooksack Disenrollments
Excerpt:
The federal government has been hesitant to get involved in tribal internal affairs, according to Robert Anderson, director of the Native American Law Center at the University of Washington and an enrolled member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. A group of Snoqualmie members experienced a rare legal victory in 2009 when a federal court judge overturned their banishment and disenrollment.
Disenrollment decisions are not only about membership, but also about belonging, Raquel Montoya-Lewis, chief judge of the Nooksack Tribal Court, wrote in a court decision.
“Cultural and tribal identity lay at the heart of how we know ourselves. … Belonging to a tribe gives tribal members a sense of home, of connection to a community, whether one lives there or not,” Montoya-Lewis wrote.
Oklahoma Federal Court Transfers Cherokee Freedmen Suit to D.C. District Court
Federal Court Dismisses Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Complaint Seeking Arbitration against Hualapai Tribe
Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Hualapai Indian Tribe of Arizona (D. Ariz.):
DCT Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration
Amended Complaint Exhibit Set 1
Amended Complaint Exhibit Set 2
Greenberg Traurig Opposition to Motion to Disqualify
Hualapai Reply in Support of Motion to Disqualify
Hualapai Reply in Support of MTD
From the opinion:
Defendants Hualapai Indian Tribe and seven named members of the Hualapai Tribal Council have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Grand Canyon Skywalk Development, LLC’s (GCSD) first amended complaint to compel arbitration. Doc. 19; see Doc. 18. The motion has been fully briefed. Docs. 21, 29. Defendants also have filed a motion to disqualify Greenberg Traurig (GT) as counsel for GCSD and for related orders protecting theTribe’s confidential information. Doc. 25. GT has filed a response in opposition which GCSD joined. Docs. 43, 37. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss GCSD’s first amended complaint, and deny Defendant’s motion to disqualify GCSD’s counsel and for related orders.
Prior post on this specific suit is here.
Update on Nooksack Disenrollments — Restart on Disenrollment Process
News coverage on the impact of the disenrollments on school-age children here.
Materials in Roberts v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
Roberts v. Kelly Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Roberts v. Kelly Declaration of Gabriel S. Galanda In Support of TRO Motion wExhibits
Roberts v. Kelly Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Raquel Montoya Lewis
Roberts v. Kelly Order Denying Emergency Temporary Order Hearing
Roberts v. Kelly Order Denying Motion To Disqualify Hon. Raquel Montoya-Lewis
Materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.