Federal Court Dismisses Access Fees Suit against Two Tribal Telecommunications Companies

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the relevant materials in MCI Communications Services Inc. v. Arizona Telephone Co. (N.D. Tex.):

37 Tribal Telecommunications Companies Motion to Dismiss

41 Opposition

42 Reply

48 Surreply

49 Final Tribal Reply

50 DCT Order

An excerpt:

In this action by two interexchange carriers (“IXCs”) seeking relief related to access fees that local exchange carriers (“LECs”) charge the IXCs to provide access services for wireless intraMTA calls, three defendants move to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) based on tribal immunity. For the reasons explained, the court grants the motion and also grants plaintiffs leave to replead.

Menominee Tribe Files Complaint Against DEA and DOJ

Sarah M Donnelly2 Comments

Doc. 1 – Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

Previous post concerning raid on the Menominee Indian Reservation here.

The Menominee Tribe is seeking a court decision on whether the Tribe’s college can grow hemp under its own law and under the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the current Farm Bill).

Ann Arbor Drops Columbus Day

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “City Council votes to stop recognizing Columbus Day” from the Michigan Daily.

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Amerind Risk Management v. Blackfeet Housing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Amerind Risk Opening Brief

Blackfeet Housing Appellee Brief

Lower court materials here.

Profile of Association of Village Council Presidents

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “AVCP aims to establish tribal court in every YK village” from Alaska Public Media.

The article features the great Monique Vondall-Rieke!

Navajo Nation Motion for Intervention and Motion to Dismiss in ICWA Goldwater Litigation

Kate Fort

Intervention motion here.

Motion to dismiss here.

Additional documents in A.D. v. Washburn here.

Petitioner’s Opening Brief in Hovercraft Moose Hunting Case Challenging Federal Regulatory Jurisdiction

Teresa Walrod

2015 11 16 Sturgeon Opening Brief

Dollar General Reply Brief

Teresa Walrod

“Petitioners are the non-Indian operators of a
business on a tribal reservation. Respondent Doe is a
member of the tribe. Doe seeks to hale petitioners
into his tribal court, asking the tribe to award him
millions of dollars in damages (including punitive
damages) for an alleged violation of unwritten tribal
tort law by one of petitioners’ employees.”

Dollar General Reply Brief

Additional Briefs HERE

 

Wasatch County v. Ute Indian Tribe Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

In Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 409 (1994), this Court granted certiorari “to resolve the direct conflict between” the Tenth Circuit and the Utah Supreme Court over whether Congress has diminished the lands of the Uintah Valley and Uncompaghre Indian Reservation. This Court adopted the state court’s holding that the lands have been diminished, such that those lands are not Indian Country.
The Tenth Circuit is not giving up, however. It has held that its prior precedent justifies expressly refusing to follow Hagen,except to the limited extent absolutely compelled with respect to the precise facts of this Court’s ruling. In this case, the Tenth Circuit went substantially further still and held that its earlier (admittedly erroneous) holding that the reservation has not been diminished binds even petitioner Wasatch County, which was not a party to any of the prior litigation. Despite this Court’s determination to resolve the conflict between the federal and state courts in Hagen, that conflict continues to persist.
The Question Presented is:
Did the court of appeals err in defying this Court’s decision in Hagen v. Utah and enjoining a proper state court prosecution of a tribal member on lands that this Court has held have been diminished by Congress?
Lower court materials here.

Interior Seeks Attorney for Knoxville Office

Sarah M Donnelly

Link to USAJOBS announcement here.