Briefs on Federal Motion to Dismiss in Bears Ears Litigation

Here are the materials in Hopi Tribe v. Trump (D. D.C.):

48 DCT Order Denying Transfer Motion

49-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss

50 Intervenors Motion to Dismiss

61 TWS Brief

63 GSCE Brief

71 UDB Brief

72 NRDC Brief

74 Tribal Response

74-1 Exhibits

75-1 Law Profs Brief

82-1 Members of Congress Amicus Brief

87-1 Local Elected Officials Amicus Brief

89 States Amicus Brief in Opposition to MTD

91-1 Archeological Orgs Amicus Brief

93 NCAI AAIA Bears Ears Amicus Brief

94-2 Outdoor Alliance Brief

Prior posts here.

Tribal Opposition to Trump Administration’s Motion to Change Venue in Bears Ears Matter to Utah

Here is the pleading in Hopi Tribe v. Trump (D.D.C.):

Doc. 26 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Federal Defendants’ Motion to Transfer 2018-02-01

The motion is here.

Administration Moves for Transfer to Utah in Bears Ears

Here is the motion in Hopi Tribe et al v. Donald J. Trump et al, 17-cv-02590 (D.D.C.):

21 – Federal Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Case to the District of Utah

Link: Case Archive

Court Denies TRO to Prevent Publishing Dakota Access EIS Notice

Download(PDF) DAPL motion and memorandum of law filed January 16, 2017:

From the District Court for the District of Columbia in the matter of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1:16-cv-01796-JEB:

“MINUTE ORDER: As explained in open court following today’s hearing, the Court ORDERS that Dakota Access’s 80 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED and its Motion for Preliminary Injunction is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 01/18/2017. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 01/18/2017)”

Download(PDF) Federal Register : Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in Connection With Dakota Access, LLC’s Request for an Easement To Cross Lake Oahe, North Dakota

Butte County Loses Challenge to NIGC Compact Approval

Here are the materials and documents in the matter of Butte County, CA v. Chadhouri et al, 08-cv-00519 (D.C. July 15, 2016):

Doc. 115 – Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 117 – United States’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 119 – Intervenor Mechoopda Indian Tribe’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 121 – Memorandum on Opposition to Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 124 – Intervenor Mechoopda Indian Tribe’s Consolidated Reply to Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Intervenor Mechoopda Indian Tribe’s Cross Motion For Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment

Doc. 125 – United States’ Reply in Support of its Cross Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 128 – Memorandum-Decision and Order

Link to previous coverage here.


Complaint and TRO in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Burwell


Opening sentences:

The Tribe brings this action against the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and its agency, the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) seeking redress for their decision to use $1.6 million in funds appropriated for the Pine Ridge Service Unit, which provides health services to tribal members and other Indian beneficiaries, to fund a settlement of overtime pay that the IHS reached with unions. The IHS intends to use these funds to pay for the settlement even though the funds are required by law to be used to make improvements in the programs of the IHS operated by or through the Pine Ridge Service Unit which may be necessary to achieve or maintain compliance with the applicable conditions and requirements of Medicare and Medicaid.

Motion for TRO.


Amodor County v. Kempthorne — No Judicial Review of Approval of Gaming Compact by Inaction

Here are the materials in this case involving the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians:





Post-Judgment Motion in Indian Preference Case — Indian Educators Federation v. Kempthorne

This case, decided in April and reported here (see opinion and materials), is in the D.C. district court. Now the question is whether the plaintiffs, who prevailed in April, are entitled to a preliminary injunction demanding the Secretary comply with the order the way the plaintiffs want, or whether the Secretary can comply in his or her own manner. The court denied the union’s motion.






St. Croix Band v. Kempthorne Materials

Here are many of the pleadings in the St. Croix Band v. Kempthorne case reported earlier today (opinion).