Cayuga Nation Prevails over Village in Gaming Case

Here is the opinion in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner (N.D. N.Y.):


Briefs here.

Update in Cayuga Nation Gaming Dispute with Village of Union Springs

Here are updated pleadings in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner (N.D. N.Y.):










Prior posts here.

Federal Court Affirms BIA Recognition Decision in Cayuga Nation Leadership Dispute

Here are the materials in Cayuga Nation v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

47 Plaintiff Cayuga MSJ

50-1 Defendant Cayuga MSJ

51 Federal MSJ

57 Plaintiff Cayuga Reply

59 Reformatted Plaintiff Cayuga MSJ

63 Defendant Cayuga Reply

64 Federal Reply

72 DCT Order

Prior posts in Cayuga Nation v. Zinke here. IBIA decision here.

NY Court of Appeals Affirms State Tax Collection Powers over Indian Retailers

Here is the opinion in White v. Scheiderman.


record on appeal

native outlet motion for leave to appeal

appellant brief

seneca nation amicus brief

cayuga nation amicus brief

state appellee brief

state response to tribal amici

reply brief

Cayuga Nation IBIA Appeal



Press release:

Cayuga Nation Traditional Government Appeals BIA Decision

Agency Violates Own Rules to Interfere in Cayuga Affairs

January 16, 2017 – Seneca Falls, NY—The Cayuga Nation’s traditional government – the Council of Chiefs and Clan Mothers – on Friday appealed the December 15, 2016 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) decision declaring a group organized by Clint Halftown to be the government of the Cayuga Nation. The decision by BIA Eastern Regional Director Bruce Maytubby would strip the Clan Mothers of their longstanding role in the Nation’s government, a role Clint Halftown has previously supported. It would put in place a mail-in survey process to substitute for the traditional processes by which Haudenosaunee Nations like the Cayuga Nation have always chosen their leaders.

“Far from being a neutral decision-maker, Maytubby prejudged the viability of the campaign of support process and secretly colluded with the Halftown faction while excluding Nation leaders then-recognized by the United States,” the appeal says. “Mr. Maytubby reversed existing federal policy on supporting mail-in surveys as a means of Cayuga governance without providing any evidence whatsoever – much less substantial evidence – to justify such a reversal.”

The appeal highlights secret communications and meetings between Mr. Maytubby and the Halftown group and points out Mr. Maytubby’s own admission that the mail-in survey process would violate federal law on tribal elections.

“This arbitrary and capricious decision and the backroom dealings that preceded it sets dangerous precedent for federal interference in the affairs of sovereign Indigenous Nations,” explained attorney Joseph Heath, who represents the Nation’s traditional leaders, many of whom have been recognized by the BIA and acknowledged as leaders by the Halftown group for more than a decade. “This violates not only Haudenosaunee law but also federal law protecting Indian nations’ right to self-governance, and their right to self-determination under Article 3 of the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

Sachem Samuel George of the Cayuga Nation noted, “Centuries of bad policies by the United States and its Bureau of Indian Affairs have resulted in the challenges our people face today. We have survived genocide, being forced from our lands, having our children taken from us. In recent decades, the United States’ policies have improved in their acknowledgement of the sovereignty of Indigenous Nations, giving us the freedom to create a better future for our people. Maytubby’s decision, on the other hand, is a return to the dark ages of Indian Affairs.”


Second Circuit Briefs in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner


Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Lower court materials here and here.

Update in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner

Here are more materials in the case captioned Cayuga Nation v. Tanner (N.D. N.Y.):

38 DCT Order Denying Unity Council Motion to Intervene

41 Plaintiffs Reply in Support of PI

42 Plaintiffs Response to Tanner Motion to Dismiss

50 DCT Order Dismissing Claims

52-1 Motion for Reconsideration

60 Tanner Opposition

61 Plaintiffs Reply

Apparently, the Halftown faction (the plaintiffs here) is continuing the fight for gaming, while the Unity Council group has been dismissed from the case. We posted materials on this case here.

Who Won American Indian Law and Policy 2014, Second Round, Bracket 1 of 4

32 are in, 32 are out. Let’s proceed to the eight remaining in Category 1, Indian nations.

#1 Alaska Native tribes v. #8 Omaha Tribe

The Alaska Natives tribes, my overall top seed, took 95 percent of the first round vote. The Omaha Tribe took 75 percent, easily routing the Kialegee Tribal Town.

#4 Cayuga Indian Nation v. # 12 Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin

All-Haudenosaunee quarterfinal! Cayuga took a narrow victory over the Big Lagoon Rancheria, with 58 percent of the vote. MHA Nation is taking some bad press lately, and the Wisconsin Oneidas wiped the floor with them, taking 77 percent of the vote.

#2 Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. #7 Gun Lake Tribe

All Michigan ‘Shinob quarterfinal. Sault Tribe took 64 percent of the vote over Fond du Lac, and I’m sure it’s not because of their sheer enrollment numbers. Or was it? Gun Lake, which took 2/3 of the vote from the Wind River Tribes, better hope not.

#3 Bay Mills Indian Community v. # 11 Lac Courte Oreilles and other Wisconsin treaty tribes

Bay Mills eked its way out of the first round with 51 percent of the vote over Cowlitz; apparently winning a Supreme Court case isn’t all that impressive compared to a win in federal district court. Huh.

Unlike Sault Tribe, enrollment numbers didn’t help Navajo, which lost handily to the Wisconsin treaty tribes, 63-37. Wisconsin’s not giving up on that treaty case, so stay tuned there.