Here are the materials in Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate v. Jewell (D.C. District Court):
trust relationship
Federal Court Dismisses Claim against Utah Police for Shooting Indian Man
Here are the materials in Jones v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Goodeagle Plaintiffs May Sue for Pre-1994 IIM Trust Account Breach
Here are the materials in Goodeagle v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Two Shields v. Wilkinson
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
Appellants Ramona Two Shields and Mary Louise Defender Wilson are Indians with interests in land allotted to them by the United States under the Dawes Act of 1887. Such land is held in trust by the government, but may be leased by allottees. Two Shields and Defender Wilson leased oil and gas mining rights on their allotments to appellee companies and affiliated individuals who won a sealed bid auction conducted by the Board of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 2007. Subsequent to the auction, appellants agreed to terms with the winning bidders, the BIA approved the leases, and appellees sold them for a large profit. Appellants later filed this putative class action in the District of North Dakota, claiming that the United States had breached its fiduciary duty by approving the leases for the oil and gas mining rights, and that the defendant bidders aided, abetted, and induced the United States to breach that duty. The district court concluded that the United States was a required party which could not be joined, but without which the action could not proceed in equity and good conscience, and dismissed the case. Appellants challenge that dismissal. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Briefs here.
Environmental group initiates FOIA lawsuit against NPS for new rule allowing Tribes to gather in National Parks
The materials are here, on PEER’s website. Among the arguments being made are that tribes are not entitled to “special rights” for gathering on NPS lands, absent an act of Congress.
Wyandot Nation v. United States Breach of Trust Complaint re: Huron Indian Cemetery
Here is the complaint in Wyandot Nation of Kansas v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Webinar Announcement: “Modernizing and Reforming the United States’s Nation-to-Nation Trust Relations and Indian Trust Asset Management”
New Student Scholarship on Medicaid and Indian Tribes
Here is “Medicaid: Can Federal Responsibilities, State Authorities, and Tribal Sovereignty be Reconciled?,” published in the Wyoming Law Review.
An excerpt:
The decisions made by state governments related to Medicaid funding of American Indian and Alaska Native health care is not consistent with either the federal responsibility or the unique government-to-government relationship the Tribes have with the federal government. The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing optional Medicaid expansion for states further emphasizes how state authority in Medicaid implementation decisions impacts federally funded care delivered to American Indians and Alaska Natives. American Indians and Alaska Natives are disproportionally impacted in states not expanding Medicaid.
Federal Court Holds US May Sell Unallotted Timber Resources over Opposition from Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations
Here are the materials in Chickasaw Nation v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Okla.):
254 Tribes Motion for Summary J
Here is the relevant statute authorizing (or mandating) the sale of the resource, as reproduced in the court’s order. Judge for yourself:
That when allotments as provided by this and other Acts of Congress have been made to all members and freedmen of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole tribes, the residue of lands in each of said nations not reserved or otherwise disposed of shall be sold by the Secretary … under rules and regulations to be prescribed by him and the proceeds of such sales deposited in the United States Treasury to the credit of the respective tribes. . . . The Secretary … is hereby authorized to sell, whenever in his judgment it may be desirable, any of the unallotted land in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, which is not principally valuable for mining, agricultural, or timber purposes, in tracts of not exceeding six hundred and forty acres to any one person, for a fair and reasonable price, not less than the present appraised value. . . . Provided further, That agricultural lands shall be sold in tracts of not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to any one person.
Quapaw Partially Prevails in Dispute over Undistributed Indian Claims Commission Judgment Funds
Here are the materials in Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
59 US Motion for Partial Summary J
An excerpt:
In deciding the cross-motions for partial summary judgment on this issue, the Court considered at least two factors. Foremost, the Court notes that fact discovery was still ongoing in this case when the motions were filed. As of March 31, 2015, the Government anticipated producing over 452,000 document images to Plaintiff before the close of fact discovery on April 16,2015. Gov.’s Status Report, Dkt. No. 81, at 5. The Court declines to draw evidentiary conclusions when material facts are in dispute and ongoing discovery may yet shed more light on the issues. Second, the Court must consider the parties’ respective burdens. To prevail at the summary judgment stage, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege a breach of trust by the Government through affirmative evidence of nonpayment so that the finder of fact could not reasonably rule in favor of the Government. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The Court finds that the Government’s evidence of accounting records and meeting minutes sufficiently rebuts Plaintiff’s argument so as to create a continuing and genuine dispute. On the other hand, the Government has not convinced the Court that records of emptied Treasury accounts and presumptions of regularity are sufficient to decide this issue. Plaintiff’s evidence of meeting minutes and the conclusions of the Quapaw Analysis satisfy the Court, again, that the issue is in genuine dispute. Therefore, the Court denies both motions for partial summary judgment on the question of whether the Tribe is entitled to recover some or all of the trust funds.
We posted earlier on this matter here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.