trust relationship – Page 55

Much like the 2009 letter from the Interior Solicitor’s Office in relation to the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, a new letter from the Interior Solicitor makes the same argument — that the National Labor Relations Act does not apply to Indian tribes — in relation to the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Here is the new letter (signed by Patrice Kunesh, Deputy Solicitor, Indian Affairs):

NLRB 12 7 11

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma v. U.S. Dismissed Under U.S. v. Tohono O’Odham Nation

December 8, 2011Kate Fort

The order from the Court of Federal Claims is here.

By statute this court lacks jurisdiction over any suit “for or in respect to” claims that are pending in another court. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss contends that plaintiff’s previously-filed district court complaint shares substantially the same operative facts as this, the second-filed action. For the following reasons, because plaintiff’s district court litigation was pending at the time the instant matter was filed, and was “for or in respect to the same claim,” applying 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2006) as recently clarified by United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011), defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.

The Appendix, included in the order, gives a side by side comparison of the two claims.

Rosebud Sioux CFC Claims Dismissed

December 6, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here’s another one:

Rosebud Sioux CFC Claim Dismissal

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation CFC Claims Dismissed

November 30, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is another suit dismissed in accordance with U.S. v. Tohono O’odham Nation:

Prairie Band CFC Dismiss

New Scholarship on U.S. v. Tohono O’odham Nation

November 28, 2011November 28, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Craig A. Schwartz has published Footloose: How to Tame the Tucker Act Shuffle After United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation in the UCLA Law Review Discourse.

The article has very little to do with Indian law, but demonstrates (if you read between the lines a bit) how the United States probably used all of the Indian claims cases now being dismissed en masse to also wipe out a class of claims based on regulatory takings. If the CFC “shuffle” case had arisen in the regulatory takings context, imagine how Scalia, J. would have reacted.

CFC Dismisses Iowa Tribe Claims against US under Tohono O’dham Precedent

November 21, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

CFC Dismissal of Iowa Tribe Claims

Coeur d’Alene Tribal Claims Fall under the Tohono O’odham Precedent

November 21, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the new case from the Court of Federal Claims:

CFC Dismissal of Coeur d’Alene Claims

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Eastern Shawnee Tribe’s CFC Claims

November 5, 2011November 4, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished, summary order in Eastern Shawnee Tribe v. United States. It was on remand from a GVR (grant, vacate, remand) from the Supreme Court (docs here). The Tribe had petitioned the Supreme Court before the United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation decision.