Navajo Sues Interior over Failure to Approve 638 Compact re: Tribal Judiciary

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. United States (D. D.C.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages brought against the Department and the Secretary for Defendants’ violations of the Indian  Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, P.L. 93-638, as amended and codified at  25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. (“ISDEAA”), and regulations promulgated thereunder, and for  Defendants’ breach of a contract made under the ISDEAA with the Navajo Nation (“Nation”). The Nation submitted its annual funding agreement (“AFA”) proposal for operations of the Navajo Nation Judicial Branch for the 2014 calendar year (“CY 2014”) to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), an agency of the United States Department of the Interior (“Department”), and the BIA failed to take the statutorily required action to approve or lawfully decline that proposal before the expiration of the 90-day period set forth in the ISDEAA and regulations promulgated thereunder. Therefore, as a matter of law, the CY 2014 AFA must be deemed approved as proposed by the Nation. Pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. (“CDA”), and sections 110(a) and (d) of the ISDEAA, 25 U.S.C. § 450m-1(a) and (d), the Nation submitted to the BIA a claim seeking relief from the Defendants’ breaches of this deemed-approved contract (No. A12AV00698: the “Contract”) and CY 2014 AFA. The Contract and the CY 2014 AFA are collectively referred to herein as the “CY 2014 Agreement.” The BIA improperly disclaimed the authority to decide the Nation’s CDA claim and thereby denied it. The Nation brings this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendants’ violations of the ISDEAA and $15,762,985 in damages for their breach of the CY 2014 Agreement, plus statutory interest from January 3, 2014.

Choctaw Nation Attempt to Intervene in Keepseagle Denied

Here are the intervention materials in Keepseagle v. Vilsack (D. D.C.):

647-1 Choctaw Nation Motion to Intervene

705-1 Great Plains Claimants Motion

716 Plaintiffs Response to Great Plains Claimants

717 Plaintiffs Response to Choctaw Nation

718 US Response to Choctaw Nation

719 US Response to Great Plains Claimants

728 DCT Intervention Order

Menominee Tribe v. United States Cert Petition

Here:

Menominee Indian Tribe Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied this Court’s Holland decision when it ruled – in direct conflict with a holding of the Federal Circuit on materially similar facts – that the Tribe did not face an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act?

Lower court materials here.

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Briefing in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission

Here:

25 Duluth Motion for Summary J

26 US Cross Motion for Summary J

27-1 Fond du Lac Proposed Amicus Bref

30 Duluth Reply

33 US Reply

The materials on the federal government’s motion to dismiss are here.

Complaint is here.

 

Pyramid Lake Tribe Prevails in Suit against IHS

Here are the materials in Pyramid Lake Tribe v. Burwell (D. D.C.):

12 Pyramid Lake Motion for Summary J

14 IHS Motion for Summary J

18 Pyramid Lake Reply

21 US Reply

26 Memorandum Opinion

27 Order

D.C. Circuit Rules against Menominee Tribe in Equitable Tolling Appeal

Here is the opinion in Menominee Tribe v. United States.

An excerpt:

Delays caused by a party’s inauspicious legal judgments are not “extraordinary circumstance[s]” sufficient to justify equitable tolling. Faced with a variety of reasonable litigation options, the Menominee Tribe chose to wait and see if more favorable law would appear. In so doing, the Tribe allowed its claims to expire. Because we find that no obstacle stood in the Menominee Tribe’s way of bringing the claims within the limitations period, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

D.C. Circuit Rules against Menominee Tribe in Equitable Tolling Appeal

Here is the opinion in Menominee Tribe v. United States.

An excerpt:

Delays caused by a party’s inauspicious legal judgments are not “extraordinary circumstance[s]” sufficient to justify equitable tolling. Faced with a variety of reasonable litigation options, the Menominee Tribe chose to wait and see if more favorable law would appear. In so doing, the Tribe allowed its claims to expire. Because we find that no obstacle stood in the Menominee Tribe’s way of bringing the claims within the limitations period, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Maniilaq Association Wins ISDEAA Dispute with HHS

Here are the materials in Maniilaq Association v. Burwell (D. D.C.):

17 Maniilaq Motion for Summary J

21 HHS Motion for Summary J

27 Maniilaq Reply

29 HHS Reply

30 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Maniilaq Association (“Maniilaq” or “plaintiff”) administers healthcare systems  through a self-determination compact and annual funding agreements under the Indian  Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), 25 U.S.C. § 458aaa, et seq. Plaintiff is seeking a declaration that a lease with the Indian Health Service (“IHS” or “defendant”) for one of the clinics Maniilaq operates under its self-determination contract is incorporated into Maniilaq’s 2013 funding agreement as a matter of law. Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment.1 For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. An appropriate Order accompanies this opinion.

R.J. Reynolds Sues US Dept. of Ag. over Tribal Tobacco Retailers

Here is the complaint in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Exhibit A

1-2 Exhibit B

News coverage here.