Turtle Talk

Kialegee Casino Developers sued Dickinson Wright PLLC in Illinois District Court for malpractice in 2013. In 2012, The Northern District of Oklahoma issued a preliminary injunction against Plaintiffs to stop a casino being placed 70 miles from the Tribe’s headquarters and the National Indian Gaming Commission issued a letter stating the Tribe didn’t have jurisdiction on the property. The Plaintiffs alleged the law firm misrepresented potential opposition to their casino.

The Illinois court ruled the NIGC claim was premature since its letter didn’t represent a final agency decision and also dismissed the complaint with prejudice because Plaintiffs prevailed when the 10th Circuit reversed the injunction and ordered Oklahoma’s case dismissed.

Washington Tribe Appeals NIGC Decision to Federal Court

November 23, 2015November 23, 2015Sarah M Donnelly

Doc. 1- Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Frank’s Landing Indian Community is suing the National Indian Gaming Commission for rejecting its class II gaming regulations. The Commission ruled in March that the Community is not a federally-recognized Tribe for the purposes of IGRA. Frank’s Landing was recognized by Congress in 1994.

Supreme Court Cert Petition in Two Shields v. Wilkinson

November 23, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Two Shields Cert Petition

ILTF Amicus Brief in Support of Petition

Law Profs Amicus Brief in Support of Petition

Questions presented:

In Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 (1990) (per curiam), this Court unanimously held that joint tortfeasors are not required parties under Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because “[i]t has long been the rule that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit.” Id. at 7. Six circuits have recognized the rule that joint wrongdoers are not required parties under Rule 19(a). Three circuits now have followed the opposite rule in holding that, in some circumstances, a joint tortfeasor is a required party, while case law in the Seventh Circuit is conflicted. The Eighth Circuit below followed the minority line of the circuit split to affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action under Rule 19 for failure to join the United States.

The question presented is: Does Rule 19 incorporate the common law rule that joint tortfeasors are not required parties?

Lower court materials here.

Supreme Court Petition Involving NAGPRA, Rule 19, and Tribal Immunity

November 23, 2015January 4, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the petition in White v. Regents of the University of California:

White Cert Petition

Questions presented:

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which governs repatriation of human remains to Native American tribes, contains an enforcement provision that states, “The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by any person alleging a violation of this chapter and shall have the authority to issue such orders as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this chapter.” 25 U.S.C. § 3013. Over a strong dissent, a divided Ninth Circuit panel held that a party can prevent judicial review of controversial repatriation decisions by claiming a tribe is a “required party” under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the tribe invokes tribal immunity. The questions presented are:

1. Whether Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a district court dismiss any case in which a Native American tribe with immunity is deemed to be a “required party.”

2. Whether tribal immunity extends to cases where Rule 19 is the only basis for adding a tribe, no relief against the tribe is sought, and no other forum can issue a binding order on the dispute; and if so, whether Congress abrogated tribal immunity as a defense to claims arising under NAGPRA.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE (1/4/16): Anthropologists Amicus Brief

U.S. HHS Seeks Members for AI/AN Health Advisory Council

November 23, 2015November 20, 2015Kate Fort

Here.

The HHS Office of Minority Health is currently recruiting to fill several vacancies on the HHS American Indian and Alaska Native Health Research Advisory Council (HRAC) which addresses health disparities in Indian County. The HRAC supports collaborative research efforts between HHS and tribal partners by providing input and guidance on policies, strategies, and programmatic issues affecting Indian tribes. The HRAC consists of 16 delegates: one delegate from each of the 12 Indian Health Service Areas; and four national-at-large delegates.

Kiowa Tribal Members Sue Over Unpaid Pipeline

November 20, 2015Sarah M Donnelly2 Comments

Plaintiffs’ complaint in Davilla et. al. v. Enable Midstream Partners here.

Enable was ordered by the BIA in 2010 to either negotiate with landowners over use of a natural gas pipeline or remove the pipeline. It has refused to do either and the Plaintiffs claim they have not been paid since at least 2009.