Ninth Circuit Holds Interior Does Not Violate ISDEAA When Denying Law Enforcement Funds to PL280 Tribes

Here is the opinion in Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Capuño v. Jewell.

From the court’s syllabus:

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians, and the court’s finding that the U.S. Secretary of the Interior violated the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection  when the Secretary declined to enter into a self-determination contract with the Tribe to fund law enforcement on the Los Coyotes Reservation.

The panel held that the Secretary properly rejected the Tribe’s contract request. The panel also held that the Tribe’s reliance on the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act was misplaced because the Act allows the Tribe to take control of existing programs and obtain funds that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) would otherwise spend on those programs, but here there was no existing BIA program, and therefore  nothing to transfer to the Tribe. The panel further held that the Administrative Procedure Act did not authorize the court to review the BIA’s allocation of law enforcement funding in Indian Country. Finally, the panel held that the BIA’s funding policy did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.

And the briefs:

Interior Opening Brief

Los Coyotes brief

Interior Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

California Tribes Move for Summary Judgment in Suit to Force Interior to Contract for Law Enforcement Services

Here is the motion in Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. Salazar (N.D. Cal.):

Hopland Band Motion for Summary J

The complaint is here.

California Tribes Sue Interior over Failure to Contract for Law Enforcement Services under ISDEAA

Here is the complaint in Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. Salazar (N.D. Cal.):

Hopland Band v. Salazar Complaint

Arizona Court Holds ISDEAA Waives Tribal Immunity in State Court

Here’s the court’s opinion.

An excerpt:

In this case, the GRIC officers were acting in the course and scope of their employment, but off the geographical boundaries of Indian Country. The Federal Tort Claim Act does not apply. Their activities instead fall within the intent of 25 U.S.C. § 450f(c). To the amount of GRIC liability coverage for the Defendants’ law enforcement activities off Indian Country not covered by FTCA, the GRIC has waived its Sovereign Immunity to suit in Arizona. The Court finds persuasive the U.S.A.’s Amicus Brief legal analysis. The Tribe has waived its Sovereign Immunity for the activities of the Defendant Officers in this case.

Is a Tribal Officer a Federal Officer under the Major Crimes Act?

The question here is whether an assault on a tribal officer can be prosecuted as an assault on a federal officer under the Major Crimes Act. The court concluded that whether the tribal cop is a federal cop must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here is the Court’s opinion in United States v. Danley.

Federal Court Finds Interior Violates Self-Determination Act in Denying 638 Public Safety Funds to Tribes in PL280 States

Here are the materials in Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians (S.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Granting Los Coyotes Motion

Los Coyotes Band Motion for Summary J

Interior Motion for Summary J

Los Coyotes Reply

Interior Reply

Federal Court Denies Interior’s Motion to Dismiss in Alturas Rancheria Demand for a 638 Contract

Apparently, Interior is unwilling to issue a 638 contract due to an ongoing tribal government dispute between factions, neither of whom might actually have control. Here are the materials in Alturas Indian Rancheria v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Denying DOI Motion to Dismiss

DOI Motion to Dismiss

Alturas Opposition

DOI Reply to Alturas

Garcia v. United States: Cacophony in the Wedding Chapel

Here is the final opinion in Garcia, a Federal Tort Claims Act claim against an Isleta Pueblo tribal cop, who intervened to break up a fight at a wedding (or, in the words of the court, “Two Weddings and a Broken Jaw”): Garcia v. United States.

The court held after a two-day bench trial that the United States could be liable for the actions of an off-duty tribal cop under a 638 contract and the FTCA, but that the cop had not committed a tort.

Briefing in Navajo Law Enforcement Employee Claim for Higher Wages under 638 Contract

The case is Boye v. United States and is pending in the Federal Circuit:

Boye Opening Brief

Government Brief (Boye)

The lower court decision is here.