Here.
Sherry Treppa Op/Ed on the BIA and Tribal Membership Decisions
Here.
D.C. District Court
Federal Court Declines to Dismiss City of Duluth v. NIGC on Standing Grounds
Here is the opinion in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. D.C.):
DCT order Denying NIGC Motion to Dismiss
Briefs are here:
Complaint here.
Federal Court Remands Cal. Valley Miwok Membership Issues to BIA
Here are the materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Jewell (D. D.C.):
56 Federal Motion for Summary J
83 Intervenor CVMT Response to US Motion
87 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
88 DCT Order on Cross-Motions for Summary J
An excerpt:
For the reasons discussed below, this Court concludes that the Assistant Secretary erred when he assumed that the Tribe’s membership is limited to five individuals and further assumed that the Tribe is governed by a duly constituted tribal council, thereby ignoring multiple administrative and court decisions that express concern about the nature of the Tribe’s governance. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in so far as it seeks remand of the August 2011 Decision and deny the Federal Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment.
More Complaints against Indian Health Service over Contract Support Costs
New Contract Support Costs Claims against Indian Health Service
Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. v. Sebelius Complaint
Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc.v. Sebelius complaint (D. D.C.):
D.C. Circuit Briefing in Menominee Tribe v. United States (IHS)
Quantum Entertainment Ltd. v. Dept. of Interior Cert Petition — “Old” Section 81 Appeal
Here:
Quantum Entertainment Cert Petition
Question presented:
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), implicitly overruled McNair v. Knott, 302 U.S. 369 (1937), and Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U.S. 143 (1883), by requiring the conclusion that a statute eliminating legal impediments to the enforcement of contracts has an impermissible “retroactive effect” when applied to a contract that was entered into before the statute’s enactment but performed without complaint until afterwards.
Lower court materials here.
Federal Court Dismisses Treaty Rights Effort to Invalidate Repossession of Vehicle
Here are the materials in Trazell v. Wilmers (D. D.C.):
D.C. Circuit Briefs in Jicarilla Royalty Dispute with Interior and Merit Energy
Here are the briefs in Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Dept. of Interior:
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.