Here are the materials in Tanana Chiefs Conference v. Beccera (D.D.C.):
D.C. Circuit Rejects Federal Effort to Dismiss Tanana Chiefs’ Contract Breach Claim Against I.H.S.
D.C. District Court
Cherokee Trust Breach Suit Update
Here are the materials so far in Cherokee Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
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
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):
80 US Motion for Partial Reconsideration
90 DCT Order Granting Reconsideration
D.C. Federal Court Rules in Favor of Small Business Admin. in Dispute with Corp. Claiming to be Owned by Recognized Tribe
Here are the materials in GTEC Industries Inc. v. Guzman (D.D.C.):
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.):
D.C. Federal Court Awards $15M+ to Navajo Nation for Judicial Costs under PL638
Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. United States (D.D.C.):
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.):
53-1 Tribe Motion for Summary J
64 Federal Motion for Summary J
D.C. Federal Court Rejects Prairie Band/Miccosukee CARES Act Formula Challenge
Here are the materials in Shawnee Tribe v. Yellen (D.D.C.):
70 Tribes Motion for Summary J
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
Prior post here.
Misunderstanding the Word “Monopoly” AND Forgetting to Read the Commerce Clause, Gaming Company Sues to End IGRA
Here is the complaint in Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States (D.D.C.):
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
40-1 Cavazos Proposed Surreply
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.