The Osage Nation sued the State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Tax Commission officials seeking an injunction against the collection of state income taxes against Osage members in Osage Indian Country. The district court denied the state’s Eleventh Amendment motion to dismiss. The CA10 reversed as to the State, but very grudgingly affirmed as to the officials, relying on Ex parte Young.
briefs
What Remains of the Yankton Sioux Reservation?
After a decade of litigation, a federal court (D. S.D.) held a trial and reached a decision as to “what remains of the Yankton Sioux Reservation following the Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329, 358 (1998).” Slip op. at 2.
Here are the materials:
United States v. Killeaney — Sixth Amendment and the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine — A Circuit Split involving Tribal Law Enforcement & Tribal Courts?
The District Court for the District of South Dakota recently declined to suppress evidence obtained in a criminal investigation at the Rosebud. This case has the potential to go to the Supreme Court (a circuit split already exists and another could arise) and could be a significant problem for tribal criminal law enforcement.
The defendant allegedly committed a crime on tribal lands, initially investigated by the tribal police and prosecuted in tribal court. The defendant made statements to police while being represented by a tribal public defender, who was not a lawyer or a law school graduate (however, the director of the tribal public defender office is a lawyer). The US would like to use those statements in the federal prosecution of the same offense. The question is when the defendant’s Miranda and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches. If the CA8 reverses this decision and holds that they attach at the tribal court level, then there will be two circuit splits.
Assiniboine & Sioux et al. v. Kempthorne Materials
Thirty-seven individual cases raising the same claims as in the Cobell litigation had been spun off from that massive case in the past few years. The United States moved to remand and stay these cases to the Department of Interior. Yesterday, Judge Robertson declined that motion.
Here are the relevant materials:
County of Amador v. USDOI Materials
From Indianz:
The Bush administration is facing tribal criticism for its land-into-trust policies but officials have at least one court victory under their belts.
In a 16-page decision issued last Thursday, a federal judge in California dismissed a suit against Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and Assistant Secretary Carl Artman. The two officials were accused of violating federal law with a legal opinion that said the Ione Band of Miwok Indians could open a casino in Amador County.
Here are the briefs:
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co. Materials — Update
Plains Commerce Bank’s cert petn reply brief is here: Reply Brief
All other materials are at our previous post.
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co. Materials
Plains Commerce Bank recently filed a cert petition in this matter, which involves a tribal court judgment against Plains Commerce. The bank argues the tribal court didn’t have jurisdiction over it, despite waiving that argument before the tribal court.
Here are the materials:
Burlington Northern v. Vaughn (CA9) Materials
BNSF v. Vaughn involves the Hualapai tribe’s attempt to impose taxes on BNSF railroad. BNSF brought an Ex parte Young action against two tribal officials: the chairman and the tax collector, seeking an injunction. The tribe argued that the railroad was required to exhaust its tribal remedies and that the tribe and its officials hadn’t waived tribal immunity. The district court disagreed. Here, the Ninth Circuit held that the tribe could bring an interlocutory appeal of the rejection of the immunity defense, but held that the tax collector was not immune from suit and remanded for further proceedings.
Here are the materials:
Bressi v. Ford — Civil Rights Complaint Against Tohono O’odham Law Enforcement
This case, now in the Ninth Circuit, presents an interesting question of whether tribal officers sued under Section 1983 are immune from suit under the tribal sovereign immunity doctrine. The district court held that the officers were immune because they acted under color of tribal law, not state law.
Here are the materials (so far):
Florida S.Ct. Seminole Compact Case Materials — Update
Here is the reply brief filed by the Fla. House of Representatives: Reply Brief
Links to the previous briefs filed in this case can be found here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.