Here is the opinion in United States v. Cavanaugh: CA8 Opinion in Cavanaugh.
Briefs are here.
tribal courts
Cherokee Nation Election Dispute
Incumbent Chief Chad Smith has filed an appeal with the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court challenging the results of the recently held election, where at different times he has been declared the winner and the loser.
An article in today’s Tulsa World discussing the case can be found here.
Smith’s appeal to the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court can be found here.
Order of the Supreme Court setting the hearing in the case for Friday, July 8 can be found here.
New Pleading in Grand Canyon Skywalk Tribal Court Case
These come in haphazardly, so here’s the response in opposition to the Hualapai motion to dismiss the GCSD complaint in tribal court:
Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss with P
Federal Govt. Effort to Enforce Trespass Law on Makah Allotment Sent to Tribal Court
Here are the materials in United States v. Ray (W.D. Wash.):
Federal Court Rejects Leech Lake Band Regulatory Authority over Otter Tail Power
Here are the materials in Otter Tail Power v. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (D. Minn.):
Grand Canyon Skywalk Contract Dispute Materials
We posted the complaint and a motion for a TRO earlier here.
As Indianz reported, the federal court has dismissed the claim for failure to exhaust tribal remedies (and in heavy reliance upon the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in the Water Wheel case).
Here are those materials:
Repeal of Canadian Human Rights Act s. 67 – Good For Individual Aboriginals ~ Very Bad For First Nations
John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, announced on Friday that s. 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act would be repealed, as of June 18th. This was done to “ensure First Nations people have the same protection of their human rights as other Canadians.” Therefore, as of Saturday, any decisions made or actions taken by band councils and the federal government, made under or pursuant to the Indian Act, will be fully subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Audio of Oral Argument in Miranda v. Braatz (Pascua Yaqui Tribe)
Briefing in Cherokee Nation Appeal of Nash Decision in Freedmen Case
Thanks for Marilyn Vann for the head’s up.
The briefs are here, and hopefully links will work below as well:
| 1- Petition in Error 1-25-11 |
| 2- Designation of Record 2-7-11 |
| 3- Entry of Appearance 2-23-11 |
| 4- Response to Petition in Error 2-23-11 |
| 5- Counter-Designation of Record 2-23-11 |
| 6-Certification of Court Clerk |
| 7-Brief 4-25-11 |
| 8-Appellees’ Answer Brief 6-3-11 part 1 |
| 8-Appellees’ Answer Brief 6-3-11 part 2 |
| 8-Appellees’ Answer Brief 6-3-11 part 3 |
| 8-Appellees’ Answer Brief 6-3-11 part 4 |
Calif. Federal Magistrate Recommends Asserting Jurisdiction over Nevada Tribe ICW Case
Here is the court’s summary:
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). As a grandparent of two children associated with the Washoe Tribe, plaintiff seeks custody of her grandchildren despite the previous action of the Washoe Tribal Court and the Inter-Tribal Court of Appeal of Nevada. Presently pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, for failure to exhaust tribal court remedies and for sovereign immunity.
The interrelationship of federal and tribal courts is a delicate and often complex matter. This case fits that mold. While it is clear that a federal court may have jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s federal claim, Boozer v. Wilder, 381 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2004), the parameters of that claim are not clear, i.e., jurisdiction over what. Nor does plaintiff’s complaint make clear what she seeks. Although alleging at one point that the Washoe tribal court lacked jurisdiction, and that she was denied due process in some manner, plaintiff does not clearly specify her precise claims or ask for any certain relief. In supplemental briefing on the jurisdictional question (Docket #25), plaintiff indicated that she wished the children returned to her.
The undersigned finds that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim by plaintiff, and that claim may include an attack on the tribal court jurisdiction and any constitutional claims that plaintiff may have, e.g., lack of due process in taking the children from non-Washoe lands, lack of due process in the tribal court, alleged fundamental right of a grandparent to custody over grandchildren in the circumstances of this case. The undersigned will defer ruling on the validity of any such claims until they are specified with greater particularity and further facts are known. Likewise, the undersigned will not attempt to define now what remedies may be available. The undersigned further concludes that plaintiff has exhausted her tribal court remedies. With respect to sovereign immunity, the court will defer ruling on such a claim until after an amended complaint is filed setting forth with preciseness the nature of plaintiff’s claims and appropriate defendants.
Here are the materials so far in Fred v. Washoe Tribe (E.D. Cal.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.