D.C. Federal Court Rejects FBI Reasons for Not Acknowledging Cayuga Nation Police

Here are the materials in Cayuga Nation v. United States (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

12 Amended Complaint

16-1 US Motion for Summary J

20 Cayuga Cross Motion

22 US Reply

24 Cayuga Reply

The FBI’s decision had a lot to do with this. . . .

D.C. Federal Court Dismisses Narragansett Challenge to Federal/State Highway Project that Impacts Providence Covelands

Here are the materials in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Nason (D.D.C.):

43 Amended Complaint

47-1 State Motion to Dismiss

49 Tribe Response

50 Reply

53-1 Tribe Motion for Summary J

54 State Response

64 Federal Motion for Summary J

66 Tribe Response

68 Federal Reply

D.C. Federal Court Rejects Prairie Band/Miccosukee CARES Act Formula Challenge

Here are the materials in Shawnee Tribe v. Yellen (D.D.C.):

65 Tribes Motion for PI

70 Tribes Motion for Summary J

71 Opposition to 65

73 Reply in Support of 65

74 DCT Order Denying Injunction

88 Amended Tribal Motion for Summary J

91 US Cross-Motion for Summary J

93 Tribal Reply in Support of 88

95 Federal Reply in Support of 91

98 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Hmmm. Comparing 1918 federal response to a pandemic — a sternly worded telegram — with 2020 — money, just not enough.

Saginaw Chippewa Disenrollees Win Small Victory against Interior

Here are the materials in Cavazos v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

18-2 Saginaw Chippewa Motion to Intervene

21 Cavazos Motion for Summary Judgment

26 Saginaw Chippewa Cross Motion for Summary

29 Federal Cross Motion for Summary

34 Cavazos Reply

38 Saginaw Chippewa Reply

39 Federal Reply

40-1 Cavazos Proposed Surreply

48 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This administrative law case centers on a U.S. Department of the Interior’s (“Interior”) decision (“AS-IA Decision”), after an informal adjudication, to decline to intervene in tribal disenrollment proceedings by the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan (“Tribe”). Plaintiffs are former members of the Tribe who have since been disenrolled by Tribal leadership. Plaintiffs charge that a federal statute particular to the Tribe, the Judgment Funds Act, PL 99-346, 100 Stat. 674 (1986) (“JFA”), required Interior to intervene in and put a stop to Tribal disenrollment proceedings. In their only claim before the Court, Plaintiffs argue that Interior’s inaction was arbitrary and/or capricious within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500 et seq. (“APA”). As a remedy, Plaintiffs seek not just a remand back to the agency, but an order from this Court mandating Interior’s intervention to reverse the Tribe’s disenrollment proceedings.
In support thereof, Plaintiffs focus primarily on statutory provisions in the JFA governing (1) antidiscrimination against tribal members enrolled after the JFA’s enactment and (2) Interior’s supervision of the JFA. Ultimately, the Court agrees with Interior that the plain meaning of the JFA: (1) does not  classify disenrollment as discrimination and (2) grants Interior broad discretion to intervene in Tribal disputes related to the JFA. However, the Court holds that Interior incorrectly read the JFA to bar  discrimination only against enrolled members of the Tribe. Because the JFA also bars the Tribe from discriminating against disenrolled members in access to benefits and services funded by the JFA, the Court shall remand the matter to Interior to reconsider whether it should exercise its discretionary authority to intervene in the alleged inequitable provision of such benefits and services. 

Prior post here.

Seminole Gaming Compact Set Aside

Here are the orders (they are the same) in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

43 DCT Order

And in Monterra MF v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

55 DCT Order

Briefs in both cases here.

D.C. Federal Court Dismisses Ute Tribe’s Water Rights Suit, Transfer Some Claims to Utah Federal Court

Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

57 Second Amended Complaint

67 State Motion to Dismiss

68 US Motion to Dismiss

69 US Motion to Transfer

70-1 Water District Motion to District

75 Tribe Opposition to 69

77 US Reply in Support of 69

80 Tribe Opposition to 70

81 Tribe Opposition to 68

82 Tribe Opposition to 67

89 Water District Reply in Support of 70

90 State Reply in Support of 67

91 US Reply in Support of 69

114 DCT Order