Here are the materials so far in Pueblo of Jemez v. United States:
Lower court materials here.
aboriginal title
Fifth Circuit Briefs in Alabama-Coushatta Tribe v. United States — Land Claims Judgment Suit
Federal Court Dismisses Jemez Pueblo Claim to Aboriginal Title Rights against USA
Here are the materials in Pueblo of Jemez v. United States (D. N.M.):
Jemez v USA Memorandum Opinion and Order
An excerpt:
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. §2409A, seeking a judgment that it has the exclusive right to use, occupy, and possess the lands of the Valles Caldera National Preserve pursuant to its continuing aboriginal title to such lands. (Doc. 1). Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 14). Plaintiff opposes the motion and requests oral argument. (Doc. 18). The Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary as the Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA), formerly codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 70 to 70n-2, divests this Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim.
Briefs are here.
North Dakota Rejects Aboriginal Title Challenge to Criminal Conviction
Here is the opinion in State v. Delorme. An excerpt:
Delorme was charged with two counts of guiding or outfitting without a license in Eddy County in violation of N.D.C.C. § 20.1-03-40 after guiding two undercover North Dakota Game and Fish Wardens to multiple hunting sites. The guiding expedition took place both on and off the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. Delorme moved to dismiss the charges because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the alleged crime took place on land reserved for the Pembina Band of Chippewa, where his aboriginal rights to hunt, fish, and gather are preserved by an 1863 treaty. The State opposed Delorme’s motion, arguing Delorme was charged with guiding or outfitting only on land outside the reservation and subject matter jurisdiction was not in dispute. The district court denied Delorme’s motion to dismiss, concluding Delorme failed to show how his offense fell outside of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The court noted, “When the veneer is scraped from his argument, what Mr. Delorme seeks is unequal protection of the law based on his race, something inimical to North Dakota law.”
Briefs:
Federal Court Rejects Alabama-Coushatta Tribe’s Effort to Force US to Pay Land Claims Judgment
Here are the materials in Alabama-Coushatta Tribe v. United States (E.D. Tex.):
We posted the complaint here.
Materials So Far in Pueblo of Jemez Aboriginal Title Claim against United States — Updated with Complete Briefs
Here are the materials so far in Pueblo of Jemez v. United States (D. N.M.):
United States Motion to Dismiss
News coverage here.
Update 9/27/13:
Second Circuit, over a Dissent, Denies En Banc Review of Shinnecock Casino Construction/Aboriginal Title Suit
Here is the dissent from the order denying en banc review:
CA2 Dissent from Denial of En Banc Petition — Shinnecock
The panel opinion and briefs are here.
British Columbia Court of Appeals Affirms Tsilhoqot’in Aboriginal Title Case
Briefs in Shinnecock Second Circuit Gaming Case Now Available
We posted the opinion and lower court materials here.
And now the briefs:
Second Circuit Vacates Federal Court Injunction against Shinnecock Casino Construction in Southampton (Updated with Briefs)
Here is the opinion:
It’s the Second Circuit, so there are no briefs (unless someone sends them along). Here are the briefs:
An excerpt:
The Shinnecock Indian Nation and its tribal officials (collectively, the “Shinnecock” or the “Tribe”) appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). After a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from developing a casino on a plot of land known as Westwoods without complying with the laws of New York State and the Town of Southampton. The Shinnecock object to a number of the district court’s factual and legal conclusions, including its findings: (1) that tribal sovereign immunity from suit does not bar this action; (2) that the Shinnecock’s aboriginal title to the land at Westwoods was extinguished in the seventeenth century; (3) that even if aboriginal title had not been extinguished, equitable principles would prevent the Shinnecock’s development of a casino in violation of state and local law; and (4) that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) supplanted any federal common law right the Tribe may have had to operate the casino. They also argue that the Bureau of Indian Affairs’s recent recognition of the Shinnecock Indian Nation moots the injunction.
We conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and thus do not reach the merits of this appeal.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.