Central District of California – Page 6

In the absence of a clear directive in the SYB Articles that blood degree of prospective members should be determined based only on the blood degree of an ancestor as listed on the 1940 Census, the Court declines to second guess the Bureau’s reasonable decision to apply SYB law in the same manner in which the Tribe applied it.

Reply Briefs in Agua Caliente Water Rights Case

January 12, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (C.D. Cal.):

2015-01-09 – Dkt 104 – US Reply in Support of Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 105 – CVWD Reply to Opp by ACBCI to CVWD Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 106 – CVWD Reply to Opp vy US to CVWD Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 107 – DWA Reply to ACBCI Opposition to DWA Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 108 – DWA Reply to US Opposition to DWA Motion for Summary Judgment

2015-01-09 – Dkt 109 – ACBCI Reply to DWA Brief in Opp to ACBCI Motions for Summary Judgment on Phase I Issues

2015-01-09 – Dkt 110 – ACBCI Reply to CVWD Brief in Opp to ACBCI Motions for Summary Judgment on Phase I Issues

Response briefs are here.

Opening briefs are here.

Update in Agua Caliente Water Rights Suit — Responsive Pleadings to Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

December 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the latest round of pleadings in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (C.D. Cal.):

2014-12-05 – Dkt 092-00 – CVWD Opposition to ACBCI and US Motions for Summary J

2014-12-05 – Dkt 093 – US Opposition to CVWD Motion for Summary Judgment

2014-12-05 – Dkt 094 – US Opposition to DWA Motion for Summary Judgment

2014-12-05 – Dkt 095 – DWA Opposition to ACBCI Motion for Summary Judgment

2014-12-05 – Dkt 096 – DWA Opposition to US Motion for Summary Judgment

2014-12-05 – Dkt 097-00 – ACBCI Opposition to CVWD Motion for Summary Judgment

2014-12-05 – Dkt 098-00 – ACBCI Opposition to DWA Motion for Summary Judgment

Cross-motions are here.

Colorado River Indian Tribes Sue Interior over Modified Blythe Solar Power Project

December 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Dept. of Interior (C.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

This complaint challenges the actions of Defendants U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and their officials (collectively, “BLM” or “Defendants”) in approving the Modified Blythe Solar Power Project (“Blythe II” or “Project”), a utility-scale solar energy generation facility slated for development on federal land northwest of Blythe, California. As set forth below, this Court has jurisdiction over this action because it presents questions of federal law, involves federal defendants, and involves a federally recognized Indian tribe as plaintiff in a suit against federal defendants. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, 1362.

The Project site is located within the ancestral homelands of the members of the Colorado River Indian Tribes (“CRIT” or “Tribes”), whose reservation begins just a few miles northeast of the site. The religion and culture of CRIT’s members are strongly connected to the physical environment of the area, including the ancient trails, petroglyphs, grindstones, hammerstones, and other cultural resources known to exist there. The removal or destruction of these artifacts and the development of the Project as planned will cause CRIT, its government, and its members irreparable harm.

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Agua Caliente Water Rights Claims

October 22, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (C.D. Cal.):

82-1 CVWD Motion for Summary J

83 US Motion for Summary J

84-1 Desert Valley Water Dist. Motion for Summary J

85-1 Agua Caliente Motion for Summary J

Previous posts here, here, and here.

National Intertribal Tax Alliance Amicus Materials in Agua Caliente v. Riverside County (Part 162 Leasing Regs)

October 16, 2014October 16, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From NITA:

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County, et al, 5:14-cv-00007-DMG-DBT (United States District Court, Central District of California). The Aqua Caliente Tribe filed this civil action against Riverside County to stop the collection of taxes on Indian land leaseholders. The Desert Water Agency intervened in this action. Riverside County collects possessory interest taxes from Indian land leaseholders and then redistributes much of the money to cities, schools and other local governments. The Tribe has long viewed as this tax as illegal and views these possessory interest taxes as an unlawful infringement on Tribal sovereignty rights. The action was filed January 2, 2014 and is set for trial on June 16, 2015.

Here are the materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County (C.D. Cal.):

NITA_Request_to_File_Amicus_and_Brief

Opposition_to_File_Amicus_Desert_Water

Opposition_to_File_Amicus_Riverside_County

We posted previously on this case here and here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Chemeheuvi Indian Tribe v. Jewell

September 17, 2014September 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion.

The court’s syllabus:

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior in an action brought by the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe alleging that the Secretary violated the Administrative Procedure Act by determining that the Department of the Interior was not authorized to approve the Tribe’s assignments of land to certain of its members.

The Tribe issued land assignment deeds to some of its members, which the Tribe submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Regional Director, seeking approval under 25 U.S.C. § 81 (2000) (“Section 81”). The Interior Board of Indian Appeals concluded that the deeds could not be approved under Section 81 because doing so would violate 25 U.S.C. § 177 (“Section 177”).

The panel applied Chevron analysis, and at step one of the analysis, held that the plain language of Section 81 and Section 177 revealed that Congress did not intend for the Secretary of the Interior to approve agreements under Section 81 that would otherwise be prohibited by Section 177. The panel held that Section 177 prohibited the conveyance of land from an Indian Tribe unless approved by Congress, and Congress had not approved the transaction at issue here. The panel concluded that the Secretary of the Interior properly denied approval of the deeds under Section 81 because such conveyances would violate federal law.

Briefs and lower court materials here.