Update in Hopi Tribe Endangered Species Act Claim against Feds re: Arizona Snowbowl

Hopi has apparently moved to voluntarily dismiss this action. Here are some materials (but not all since it seems moot now):

Hopi Motion for PI

Federal Opposition

Hopi Response to Arizona Snowbowl Motion

Hopi Voluntary Dismissal Notice

Our first post on the complaint was here.

Complaint Challening Trust Acquisition for North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians

Here is the complaint in Stand Up for California v. DOI (D. D.C.):

Stand Up for California Complaint

An excerpt:

This “reservation shopping” case involves a dispute over the Secretary of the United States Department of Interior’s decision to acquire 305.49 acres (the “Casino Parcel”) in trust on behalf of the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (the “North Fork Tribe” or the “Tribe”) under 25 U.S.C. § 465 for the purpose of enabling the Tribe to develop and operate a mega-casino funded by Las Vegas-based Station Casinos, Inc. (“Station Casinos”) almost 40 miles from the Tribe’s reservation. The Tribe already has ancestral lands in trust on which gambling can occur, and therefore the Secretary’s decision has been highly controversial and widely opposed. As is explained in detail below, the decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and was not in accordance with the federal policy strongly favoring on-reservation gambling, and the limited exception for off-reservation Indian gambling. Indeed, the Casino Parcel was strategically chosen adjacent to State Route 99 to provide easy access to nearby metropolitan areas with large numbers of potential gamblers.

 

Complaint Challenging Trust Acquisition for Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians

Here is the complaint in Citizens for a Better Way v. DOI (D. D.C.):

Citizens for a Better Way Complaint

From the complaint:

This dispute centers on the November 21, 2012, decision of the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), through Secretary Kenneth Salazar (“Secretary”), to acquire a 40-acre parcel of land located near rural Wheatland, California (“Yuba Site”) in trust on behalf of group of Indians alleged to be the Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California (“Enterprise”) and the underlying September 2011 determination approving off-reservation gaming on the Site. The purpose of the acquisition is to allow Enterprise to develop an off-reservation casino-resort with 1,700 slot machines and 170-room hotel in the middle of a farming community in Yuba County. The Secretary published notice of the trust decision in the Federal Register on December 3, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 71,612-01 (Dec. 3, 2012). The Secretary did not publish notice of the underlying gaming determination, made in September 2011, in the Federal Register.

Hopi Tribe Sues USDA Forest Service under Endangered Species Act over Arizona Snowbowl

Here is the complaint in Hopi Tribe v. United States Dept. of Agriculture — Forest Service (D. D.C.):

Hopi Complaint

D.C. Circuit Briefs in “Old Section 81” Appeal

Here are the briefs in Quantum Entertainment Inc. v. Dept. of Interior:

Quantum Opening Brief

Interior Answering Brief

Quantum Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Defense Contractor Sues Dept. of Defense over SBA Sec. 8(a) Race-Based Contracting (Excluding Indian Tribes)

Here is the complaint in Rothe Development, Inc. v. Dept. of Defense (D. D.C.):

Rothe Complaint

An excerpt:

Congressional amendments in 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-272, § 18015, 100 Stat. 370) and 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-656, § 207, 102 Stat. 3861, as amended by Pub. L. No. 101-37, § 6, 103 Stat. 72) also added “Indian tribes” and “Native Hawaiian Organizations” to the races deemed presumptively socially disadvantaged by 15 U.S.C. § 631(f)(1). However, ROTHE does not challenge the classifications “Indian tribes” and “Native Hawaiian Organizations” in this action. ROTHE understands the distinction in law drawn between “Native American” as a racial classification, on one hand, and an entity the United States has treaty or trust obligations towards, such as an “Indian tribe” or a “Native Hawaiian Organization” on the other. Cf. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (legislation that singles out federally recognized Indian tribes is Constitutional “where the preference is reasonable and rationally designed to further Indian self-government”). ROTHE is only challenging the racial classification of section 8(a), which by definition includes only those groups currently classified by law as being “racial” groups: Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities to be determined by the SBA (to date, Subcontinent Asian Americans).
Update: It appears the court resolved these questions in favor of the constitutionality of Section 8(a) in another case:

Jicarilla Loses Royalties Challenge with Merit Energy

Here is the opinion in Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Dept. of Interior (D. D.C.):

Jicarilla v Interior

Seneca Nation Sues Feds over IHS Self-Determination Funding

Here is the complaint in Seneca Nation of Indians v. HHS (D. D.C.):

Seneca v HHS Complaint

Update in Clark County v. Salazar — DCT Denies Remand to Interior

Here are the new materials in Clark County v. Salazar (D. D.C.):

Interior Amended Motion for Remand

Clark County Opposition to Remand

Interior Reply

DCT Order Denying Remand

Clark County’s motion for summary J is here.

ICT: Private Cobell Lawyers Oppose NARF Fee Request

Here is today’s ICT article.

Materials referenced in the article are here:

Opposition to NARF Fees 2011

Supp. Memo. Opposing NARF Fees