Here are the materials in Native American Arts v. Bud K World Wide (M.D. Ga.):
DCT Order Denying Bud K Motion to Dismiss
This one’s for A.K.
Article III standing
Eleventh Circuit Holds Hollywood Mobile Estates Does Not Have Standing to Sue Seminole Tribe/Interior in Tribal Lands Repossession Case
Here is the opinion. And here are the briefs.
An excerpt:
This appeal presents issues of constitutional and prudential standing. The issue of constitutional standing is whether Hollywood Mobile Estates Limited alleged an injury fairly traceable to the Secretary of the Interior or redressable by the district court in a complaint that alleged that the Seminole Tribe of Florida had threatened to repossess tribal property in violation of a lease between Hollywood and the Tribe. After the Tribe repossessed the leased property, the district court denied, as futile, the motion of Hollywood for leave to amend the complaint to request injunctive relief against the Secretary under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. That decision raises an issue of prudential standing: whether the interests of Hollywood are within the zone of interests protected by the Indian Long–Term Leasing Act, 25 U.S.C. § 415, and its accompanying regulations. Because we conclude that Hollywood lacked constitutional standing to maintain its complaint, we vacate in part the judgment entered by the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because we also conclude that Hollywood lacked prudential standing to sue the Secretary, we affirm the denial of the motion for leave to amend the complaint as futile.
Oral Argument Transcript in Amador County v. Salazar
Here:
Transcript Oral Argument DCCircuit Amador County v USA Case
Some very striking comments from the judges on the ability of outsiders to challenge the viability of gaming compacts between tribes and states, especially the import of the Patchak case. Worth a read.
First Circuit Dismisses Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Member Land Claims
Here is the opinion in Bingham v. Massachusetts (with former Justice Souter on the panel).
Lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit Holds that Challengers to Graton Rancheria Casino Have No Standing
Federal Court Denies Injunction in Muscogee Cigarette Seizure Case
Thanks to Mike for this. Here’s a news article on this case.
A federal court dismissed a request for an injunction against the Oklahoma Tax Commission for seizing tobacco products owned by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. State law enforcement had seized the smokes on some pretty spurious grounds, pulling the trucks over for “weaving” and “following too close” (not texting!?!). The court rejected most of the Commission’s defenses, including standing and sovereign immunity, but dismissed the claim on the basis that Indian tribes are not “persons” that can sue under Section 1983, per Inyo County.
Sounds to us like a Section 1983 legislative “fix” is in order, too, like all the other problems created by the Supreme Court in the last decade.
More later.
Ninth Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Phoenix-Area “DUI Courts”
Here is the opinion in Thomas v. Mundell, a case brought by the Maricopa County Attorney and others, challening the establishment of separate “DUI courts” in Phoenix for Spanish-speaking and American Indian people. The court tossed the challenge on standing grounds.
An excerpt:
With respect to the Native American DUI court, the amended complaint alleges that probationers here are generally required to appear on the same day. Probationers in the Native American DUI court also allegedly participate in “cultural programs, specially designed for them, such as being sent to sweat lodges and participating in talking circles.” Administrators of the DUI court program also allegedly treat participants in the Native American DUI court “as a separate group” for grant reporting purposes.
Geoffrey Feiger Loses Free Speech Claim in Sixth Circuit
From How Appealing:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has today issued its ruling in Geoffrey Fieger v. Michigan Supreme Court: Today’s ruling begins:
After a panel of judges on the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a $15 million judgment initially entered in favor of his client, and while the case was pending before the court, attorney Geoffrey Nels Fieger made vulgar comments about the judges on a radio show he hosted.
The majority on a divided three-judge panel reached the following holding:
We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We hold that Fieger and Steinberg lack standing because they have failed to demonstrate actual present harm or a significant possibility of future harm based on a single, stipulated reprimand; they have not articulated, with any degree of specificity, their intended speech and conduct; and they have not sufficiently established a threat of future sanction under the narrow construction of the challenged provisions applied by the Michigan Supreme Court. For these same reasons, we also hold that the district court abused its discretion in entering declaratory relief.
Amodor County v. Kempthorne — No Judicial Review of Approval of Gaming Compact by Inaction
Here are the materials in this case involving the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians:
Second Update on Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon
Here is the response brief to the motion to dismiss (here): opposition-to-motion-to-dismiss
And here is the main oil company reply brief: oil-company-reply-brief
And one from Shell Oil: shell-reply-brief
And, of course, here is the complaint that started it all.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.