Here are the new materials in Navajo Nation v. Azar (D.D.C.):
Doc 16 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc 22 Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternativ…
Doc 23 Memorandum Opinion 2018-03-27
Prior post here.
D.C. District Court.
Federal Court Rejects Yankton Sioux Arguments on Dakota Access Pipeline
Here are the materials in the consolidated cases known as Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
Ute Indian Tribe Sues US for Breach of Trust
Here is the complaint in Ute Indian Tribe v. United States (D.D.C.):
Update in Cayuga Nation Leadership Dispute
Here are the materials in Cayuga Nation v. Zinke (D.D.C.):
17 Cayuga Nation Council Motion to Intervene
19 Plaintiffs Opposition to 16
20 Plaintiffs Opposition to 17
24 Cayuga Nation Council Reply in Support of 17
29 DCT Order Granting Motion to Intervene
31 Cayuga Nation Council Opposition to 22
33 Interior Reply in Support of 16
37 Plaintiffs Reply in Support of 22
Related post.
Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Wilton Rancheria Trust Acquisition Made by Acting Interior Official
Here are the materials in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):
33 Stand Up Motion for Summary J
Federal Court Rejects Navajo Move for Immediate Funding of Head Start Program; Case to Proceed
Here are the materials so far in Navajo Nation v. Azar (D.D.C.):
Utah Diné Bikéyah & Patagonia and Others Sue Trump over Bears Ears, Too
Here is the complaint in Utah Diné Bikéyah v. Trump (D.D.C.):
2017.12.06 – Bears Ears Complaint (filed)
Here is the complaint in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Trump (D.D.C.):
Redding Rancheria Prevails in Reimbursement Dispute with Indian Health Service
Here are the materials in Redding Rancheria v. Hargan (D.D.C.):
31-1 US Motion for Summary Judgment
34-1 Rancheria Motion for Summary Judgment
Federal Court Rules Cherokee Freedmen Retain Treaty Rights
Here is the opinion in Cherokee Nation v. Nash (D.D.C.).
More details tomorrow.
An excerpt:
The Court finds it confounding that the Cherokee Nation historically had no qualms about regarding freedmen as Cherokee “property” yet continues, even after 150 years, to balk when confronted with the legal imperative to treat them as Cherokee people. While the Cherokee Nation might persist in its design to perpetuate a moral injustice, this Court will not be complicit in the perpetuation of a legal injustice.
Federal Court Dismisses as Moot Lumbee Member Challenge to BIA Indian Preference Interpretation
Here are the materials in Nakai v. Zinke (D.D.C.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.