D.C. District Court. – Page 18 – Turtle Talk

Standing Rock’s TRO Granted in Part and Denied in Part

September 6, 2016Kate Fort1 Comment

As this article notes, the TRO was partially granted this afternoon.

Here’s the docket entry:

MINUTE ORDER: As explained at today’s hearing, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ [30, 31] Motions for Temporary Restraining Order are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As agreed by Defendants, the Court ORDERS that no construction activity on the DAPL may take place between Highway 1806 and 20 miles to the east of Lake Oahe. Construction activity to the west of Highway 1806 may proceed. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 9/6/2016. (lcjeb1) (Entered: 09/06/2016)

Documents here.

Standing Rock v. Army Corps Update — New Pleadings on Newly Discovered Archeological Sites

September 6, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the new pleadings in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

srst-motion-tro

Standing Rock Sioux Sues Army Corps over Dakota Access Pipeline

August 8, 2016August 24, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the materials so far in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

Standing Rock Complaint

Motion preliminary injunction

DAPL motion to intervene

Proposed order preliminary injunction

Proposed order expedited hearing

UPDATE (8/24/16):

USACE opposition memorandum to PI motion

Standing Rock reply in support of PI

Federal Court Allows Menominee to Intervene in Forest County Challenge to Gaming Compact Rejection

April 15, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Forest County Potawatomi Community v. United States (D.D.C.):

41 DCT Order Granting Menominee Motion to Intervene

Briefs are here.

Navajo Loses 2014 Self-Determination Contract Funding Challenge

March 31, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):

15-3 Navajo Motion for Summary J

21 Navajo Reply

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Navajo Nation (the “Nation”) alleges that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), an agency within the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”), violated the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. (the “ISDEAA”), by failing to disperse calendar year (“CY”) 2014 funding to the Nation according to the Nation’s proposed CY 2014 annual funding agreement (the “Proposal”). Specifically, the Nation contends that DOI Secretary Sally Jewell (the “Secretary”) failed to approve or decline the Proposal within the statutorily-mandated 90-day window for doing so and that, as a result, the Proposal must be deemed approved as a matter of law.

The parties have each moved for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the parties’ motions and supporting briefs, and for the reasons set forth below, the Nation’s motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED, and DOI’s cross-motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.

Federal Court Orders IHS to Negotiate Clinic Rental Funds

March 23, 2016March 23, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Maniilaq Assn. v. Burwell (D.D.C.):

10 Maniilaq Assn Motion for Summary J

17 Maniilaq Response

Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Interior Approval of Buena Vista Rancheria of the Me-Wuk Tribe Gaming Compact

March 18, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in County of Amador v. Jewell (D.D.C.):

76-1 Amador County Motion for Summary J

81 Amador County Reply

An excerpt:

At the center of this dispute is a proposed gaming operation on the Buena Vista Rancheria of the Me-Wuk Tribe located in Amador County, California. In 2000, pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (the “Secretary”), approved a gaming compact between the MeWuk Tribe and the State of California. The gaming compact was later amended in 2004 to provide for an expanded gaming operation. Although it had not challenged the 2000 gaming compact, Plaintiff, Amador County, challenges the Secretary’s approval of the amended compact, claiming that the Buena Vista Rancheria does not qualify as “Indian land”—a requirement under the IGRA.

***

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes that: (1) Amador County stipulated that it would treat the Buena Vista Rancheria as a reservation; (2) Amador County is barred from arguing in this litigation that the Rancheria is not a reservation; and, alternatively, (3) the Secretary is authorized to declare that the Rancheria is a reservation for purposes of the IGRA. Therefore, the Court will DENY Amador County’s motion for summary judgment and GRANT the Secretary’s cross-motion. The reasoning for the Court’s decision is set forth below.

Federal Court Affirms BIA Effort to Evict Non-Indian Leaseholder at CRIT

March 18, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Tuttle v. Jewell (D.D.C.):

24-1 Tuttle Motion for Summary J

27 US Cross-Motion

29 US Motion to Strike Tuttle Motion

33 Tuttle Reply

34 Tuttle Opposition to Motion to Strike

37 US Reply in Support of Motion to Strike

An excerpt:

Plaintiff William Tuttle leased restricted Indian land in Riverside County, California, for a term of 50 years. The land is owned by the United States in trust for the Colorado River Indian Tribes. In 2010, the Bureau of Indian Affairs terminated the lease, finding that Mr. Tuttle had violated several of its provisions. The termination decision was affirmed by the Interior Board of Indian Appeals. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Interior Board of Indian Appeals are constituent agencies of the Department of Interior. Plaintiff sued the Secretary of the Interior, in her official capacity, complaining that the agency’s decision to terminate was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of both the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act and the terms of the Lease itself. Having reviewed the entire administrative record, the Court concludes that the agency acted reasonably on the record before it and within its authority. The Secretary’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.

46 DCT Order Granting Motion to Strike

Title VII Suit against Alaska Native Corp. Dismissed

March 15, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Daniels v. Chugash Government Services Inc. (D.D.C.):

14 Motion to Dismiss

Update in Forest County Potawatomi Challenge to Class III Gaming Compact Disapproval

March 15, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Forest County Potawatomi Community v. United States (D.D.C.):

19-1 US Motion to Transfer Venue

20 FCPC Opposition

22-1 Menominee Motion to Intervene

27 FCPC Opposition to Menominee Intervention Motion

31 Menominee Reply

33 DCT Order Denying Motion to Transfer

We posted the complaint way back in early 2015.