Here:
2013-01-28 Appellee Cherokee Nation Petition for Rehearing (without attachments)
Panel materials here.
The D.C. Circuit has had few, if any, en banc hearings in the last few years because the court is severely understaffed. There have been, however, a rash of dissents from denial of en banc petitions which serve as a sort of marker for later review. Worth it to see if anything happens here.
Here are the materials in El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. United States:
Materials from an earlier D.C. Circuit appeal (the Mill Tailings Act Appeal) are here.
Here is today’s opinion in Vann v. Dept. of Interior: CADC Opinion
An excerpt:
Applying the precedents that permit suits against government officials in their official capacities, we conclude that this suit may proceed against the Principal Chief in his official capacity, without the Cherokee Nation itself as a party.
The Freedmen have sued the Principal Chief in his official capacity under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123. The Ex parte Young doctrine allows suits for declaratory and injunctive relief against government officials in their official capacities – notwithstanding the sovereign immunity possessed by the government itself. The Ex parte Young doctrine applies to Indian tribes as well. Cf. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 498 U.S. at 514; see generally Larson, 337 U.S. at 689-92; RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., DANIEL J. MELTZER & DAVID L. SHAPIRO, HART AND WECHSLER’S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 958-60 (5th ed. 2003).
Briefs are here.
Here is the order:
The Cherokee Nation has voluntarily dismissed their claims against the feds in Cherokee Nation v. Nash:
Cherokee nation vs nash order 8 21 2012 feds
The feds have an outstanding counterclaim against the Nation and so they remain parties.
In the D.C. Circuit appeal, Vann v. Interior, here is Vann’s reply brief:
2012-08-30 Reply Brief of Appellants Marilyn Vann et al
Prior briefs are here.
The D. C. Circuit says yes. Last week’s article (on the blog Circuit Splits) is here. The article analyzes how the D.C. Circuit decision Grocery Manufacturers Association v. E.P.A. creates a circuit split as to whether prudential standing is jurisdictional. The dissent in the case relies significantly on Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak.
Here.
Here are the musings of Ted Frank (Kim’s former attorney) on the D.C. Circuit decision.
UPDATE: Apparently, Rob C. at ICT has the draft, and published most of the details here.
Here are those briefs:
Cherokee Nation Brief [defending the Rule 19 dismissal]
Interior Brief [arguing against Rule 19 dismissal]
The opening brief is here.
.
Here is today’s opinion in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA:
Here are the materials in Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar:
Lower court materials are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.