Tenth Circuit Affirms United States v. Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

We recognize that in interpreting federal statutes in Indian affairs we “provide for a broad construction when the issue is whether Indian rights are reserved or established, and for a narrow construction when Indian rights are to be abrogated or limited.” Felter, 752 F.2d at 1512; see also F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 224–25 (1982). In Felter, we determined the hunting and fishing rights of the individuals were not abrogated because the statute did not clearly abrogate them—this is a narrowing construction. But we cannot also conclude that the Termination Act implicitly gave the Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe authority to exercise Ute tribal rights with respect to hunting and fishing, when the Act plainly established those rights within the Ute Tribe.

Briefs here.

Federal Court Holds Nonrecognized Tribe May Not Issue Hunting and Fishing Permits But Does Not Issue Injunction under 18 U.S.C. § 1343

Here are the materials in United States v. Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe (D. Utah):

2 Complaint

3 Motion for TRO

14 Response

15 Response

26 Defendants Brief on Plenary Power

45 Federal Motion for Summary J

47 Opposition

48 Opposition

56 DCT Order