Burt Lake Band Attempting to Re-open Federal Recognition Suit

Here are the new materials in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

63-1 Burt Lake Motion

Docket No. 64: MINUTE ORDER. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that “a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“As a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction.”). Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and “courts may raise the issue sua sponte.” NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 120 (D.C. Cir. 2008), quoting Athens Cmty. Hosp., Inc. v. Schweiker, 686 F.2d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Indeed, a federal court must raise the issue because it is “forbidden… from acting beyond [its] authority, and ‘no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.'” Id., quoting Akinseye v. Dist. of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In connection with the 63 Motion to Rule Upon Constitutional Claims and For Permanent Injunction, then, plaintiff must show cause by January 6, 2023 why the question of the validity of the proposed rule would be ripe at this time, and why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider the constitutional issues when there is no live controversy before it. The 2015 rule has been vacated but its replacement has not yet been promulgated, so plaintiff must explain why it is not simply seeking an advisory opinion. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/23/2022. (lcabj2) (Entered: 12/23/2022)

65 Burt Lake Response

66 Interior Response

Prior post here.

D.C. Federal Court Rejects Effort to Seek Trust Accounting re: Allotments of Former Slaves of Indian Tribes

Here are the materials in Tanner-Brown v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

15 Motion to Dismiss

18 Opposition

19 Reply

21 DCT Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

24 Motion to Alter Judgment

29 Response

32 Reply

34 DCT Order Denying Motion to Alter

D.C. Federal Court Affirms Army Corps’ Approval of Enbridge Line 3 Permit

Here are the new materials in Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

52 Friends of the Headwaters MSJ

53-1 Tribes and Tribal Orgs MSJ

61-1 US Cross Motion

64 Enbridge Cross Motion

65 Tribal Reply

67 Friends Reply

69 US Reply

70 Enbridge Reply

90 DCT Order

Prior post here.

DALL-E rendition of the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline.

D.C. Federal Court Rules in Favor of Scotts Valley Pomo in Indian Lands Dispute with Interior, Remands to Agency

Here are the materials in Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

48 Scotts Valley MSJ

54-1 US Cross Motion

56 Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Amicus Brief

58 Scotts Valley Reply

59 US Reply

64 Memorandum Opinion

Complaint posted here.

D.C. Federal Court Remands NCAI Suit to D.C. Superior Court

Here are the materials in Desiderio v. National Congress of American Indians (D.D.C.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-1 DC Superior Court Complaint

7 Order to Show Cause

9-1 NCAI Motion to Dismiss

10 NCAI Response to Show Cause Order

11 DCT Remand Order

Cherokee Trust Breach Suit Update

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

1 Complaint

34-1 Motion to Dismiss

39 Opposition

41 Reply

42 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

54-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss

55-1 Federal Motion for Protective Order

60 Cherokee Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

85 DCT Order Re Protective Order

88-1 Cherokee Motion for Summary J

96-1 Federal Cross-Motion

97 Federal Cross-Motion

98 Cherokee Motion for Summary J

99 Cherokee Reply in Support of MSJ

D.C. Federal Court Dismisses All Claims Except APA Claim by Ute Tribe to Uncompahgre Reservation

Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. United States (D. Utah):

1 Complaint

35 US Motion to Dismiss

46 Opposition

48 Reply

76 DCT Order

80 US Motion for Partial Reconsideration

87 Opposition

89 Reply

90 DCT Order Granting Reconsideration