Briefing in Mille Lacs Reservation Boundaries Case

Here are the materials in Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):

225 Tribe Motion for Summary Judgment

241 County Motion for Summary Judgment

250 State of Minnesota Amicus Brief

265-1 US Amicus Brief

Prior post here.

Federal Court Holds Mille Lacs Ojibwe Has Standing to Sue County over Reservation Boundaries

Here are the materials in Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):

149 Mille Lacs Band Motion for Summary J

164 Walsh Motion for Summary J

173 Mille Lacs Band Response

176 Walsh Response

184 County Motion for Sanctions

190 Mille Lacs Band Response to 184

194 Mille Lacs Band Reply

198 Walsh Reply

217 DCT Order

Prior posts here and here.

Federal Court Dismisses Klickitat County’s Challenge to Yakama Reservation Land Status, PL280 Retrocession

Here are the materials in Klickitat County v. Department of the Interior (E.D. Wash.):

9 US Motion to Dismiss

10 Response

12 US Reply

14 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Bishop Paiute Challenge to Inyo County Sheriff’s Threat to Prosecute Tribal Cops for Lack of Case and Controversy

Here are the materials in Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County (E.D. Cal.):

14 Inyo County Motion to Dismiss

15-1 Inyo County Motion to Dismiss

16-1 Inyo County Motion to Dismiss

21 Tribal Opposition

25 Inyo County Reply

26 Inyo County Reply

27 Inyo County Reply

33 Tribal Opposition

35 DCT Order

We posted the complaint here.

Federal Court Dismisses American Indian Arts and Crafts Act Claim for Lack of Article III Standing

Here are the materials in Native American Arts v. Peter Stone Co. (N.D. Ill.):

250 Peter Stone Motion for Summary J on Standing

267 Peter Stone Motion for Summary J

271-1 Native American Arts Motion for Summary J

279 Native American Arts Response to 250

281 Peter Stone Reply in Support of 250

323 DCT Order

On Reconsideration, Federal Court Dismisses Indian Group’s Petition to Preserve Judge Cebull Emails

Here are the new materials in Four Directions v. Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States (N.D. Cal.):

58 Motion for Reconsideration

73 Opposition

76 Reply

83 DCT Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration

Prior materials here.

NIGC Prevails in Dispute with City of Duluth over the Fond du Luth Casino

The D.C. District Court granted the NIGC’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the City’s APA challenge to the Fond-du-Luth NOV. Here is the order in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. D.C.):

APA case — District Court Op. (March 31 2015)

An excerpt:

Plaintiff City of Duluth, Minnesota, brings this action challenging a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) that the National Indian Gaming Commission (the “Commission”) issued to the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (the “Band”) with respect to Band’s gaming establishment in the City of Duluth. This action is the latest step in a long saga pertaining to the relationship of the Band and the City of Duluth with respect to gaming, including proceedings in federal court in Minnesota, before the National Indian Gaming Commission, and, now, before this Court as well. In a nutshell, in the NOV, issued July 12, 2011, the National Indian Gaming Commission informed the Band that the 1994 Agreement between the Band and the City of Duluth violated the requirement that the Band have the “sole proprietary interest” in the gaming activity pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. The City of Duluth filed this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming that the NOV, first, was arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law, and, second, exceeded Defendants’ authority under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The City of Duluth requests that the NOV be set aside and requests related declaratory and injunctive relief. The Federal Defendants—the Commission and Jonodev Chaudhuri, in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission—argue that the NOV neither was arbitrary or capricious nor exceeded the scope of the Commission’s authority. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s [24] Motion for Summary Judgment and the Federal Defendants’ [26] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s [24] Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ [26] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court concludes that the NOV was not arbitrary or capricious; that it did not exceed the scope of the Commission’s authority; and that none of the other legal infirmities that Plaintiff identifies are grounds for setting aside the NOV. Accordingly, this case is dismissed in its entirety.

Briefs are here.

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Flute v. United States — Sand Creek Massacre Trust Accounting Claims


Flute Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

Flute Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Briefing in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission


25 Duluth Motion for Summary J

26 US Cross Motion for Summary J

27-1 Fond du Lac Proposed Amicus Bref

30 Duluth Reply

33 US Reply

The materials on the federal government’s motion to dismiss are here.

Complaint is here.