Here are background materials.
Department of Justice opposes, which is unfortunate, given that the Department specifically asked for tribal comments on the proposal to repeal or reform the statute.
Court of Federal Claims
Shinnecock Indian Nation Sues United States for $1.1Billion over Land Dispossession
Here is the complaint:
Updated Materials on Proposal to Amend/Repeal Section 1500
Federal Claims Court Dismisses Pro Se Claim to ANCSA Money
Here is the opinion in Evans v. United States:
Administrative Conference Recommends Repeal and Replacement of Section 1500
Tribal support needed. Here are the materials:
S 1500_ Revised draft recommendation _ 09202012
DOJ Statement Re Section 1500 Proposal
From DOJ:
The Department of Justice is seeking input from tribal leaders to assist the Department in formulating the official position it will take on a proposal that will be considered in early December 2012 by the Administrative Conference of the United States, of which the Department is a member. The proposal, which did not originate at the Department of Justice, would recommend to Congress that it repeal and replace 28 U.S.C. 1500, a Federal statute that prohibits consideration by the United States Court of Federal Claims of otherwise cognizable claims if the plaintiff also has pending litigation against the United States in any other court based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of the type of relief sought. Additional information regarding the statute and the proposal are included in the attached letter and enclosures.
HUD Must Provide Hearing Prior to Recapturing NAHASDA Funds in Allocation Formula Dispute
Here are the materials in Lummi Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
DCT Order Denying US Motion to Dismiss Count 2
An excerpt:
In conclusion, we read Section 405 as governing HUD’s actions and thus as precluding HUD from exercising any common law right the agency might otherwise possess under circumstances not directly addressed by the statute. We further read that section as applying only in cases that do not involve a grant recipient’s substantial noncompliance with NAHASDA (which would fall instead under Section 401). In addition, we construe Section 405’s implementing regulations as requiring the Secretary to provide notice and the opportunity for a hearing before making an adjustment to a recipient’s grant amounts and as preventing the Secretary from recapturing grant amounts already expended on affordable housing activities. To conclude otherwise would allow HUD to deny grant recipients the protections Congress has afforded them when faced with a reduction in their grant funding, would further allow the agency to circumvent a process put into place by consensus rulemaking at the direction of Congress, and would lead to the anomalous result that a grant recipient in substantial noncompliance with NAHASDA would receive greater procedural protections before experiencing a recapture of their grant funds than recipients in full compliance (a target for recapture through a fault of HUD’s rather than their own). We are unwilling to endorse such an unsatisfactory result.
CFC Dismisses Trust Breach Suit by Blackfeet Tribe re: Black Mold Problems
Here are the materials in Blackfeet Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
DCT Order Dismissing Blackfeet Complaint
Klamath Claims Committee Trust Breach Suit Dismissed under Rule 19
Here are the materials in Klamath Claims Committee v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Cheyenne-Arapho Tribes Allege Scary Federal Trust Breach
Here is the complaint in Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
If the allegations are proven true, then this is unbelievable. Here is what I mean:
16. On or about November 10th, 2011, the Concho Agency received a request from a person purporting to act on behalf of the Tribe to transfer funds from the Tribal Accounts to a private bank account at the Citizens State Bank in Ada, Oklahoma (“Citizens Bank”).
17. In response to the request, on or about November 18, 2011 the BIA Concho Agency transferred approximately $760,225.00 from the Tribal Accounts to a private bank account at Citizens Bank numbered xx8645 (the “Transfer”).18. The Tribe neither authorized nor had knowledge of the request, and at no time prior to the Transfer did the BIA Concho Agency contact or inform the Tribe about the request.19. The owner of the account to which the Tribe’s funds were transferred had no legal right to the funds, which were held by the United States for the exclusive benefit of the Tribe and its members.20. As a result of the Transfer, the Tribe’s funds were placed beyond the control of both the Tribe and Defendant.21. On or about November 23, 2011, the BIA Southern Plains Regional Director vacated the actions of the BIA Concho Agency and demanded that the funds transferred from the Trust Accounts as a result of the Transfer be returned with all possible haste.22. To date, none of the funds transferred from the Trust Accounts as a result of the Transfer have been returned to the Tribe or its Trust Accounts.
23. As a result of the Transfer, the Tribe was unable to provide its members with a year-end per capita distribution in December 2011.
Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Claims by “Florida Choctaws”
Here is the opinion in Williams v. United States.
We’d have briefs but the Federal Circuit PACER doesn’t have them available.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.