District of Arizona – Page 12

1. Whether federal courts are free to ignore congressionally confirmed Indian treaty rights that impliedly reserve tribal jurisdiction over nonmember conduct within an Indian reservation, thereby effecting an impermissible judicial abrogation of those treaty rights.

2. Whether federal courts may disregard the Supreme Court’s multifactor analysis for determining the status of a roadway existing on tribal trust land when deciding if an Indian tribe has inherent sovereign jurisdiction to adjudicate a collision occurring on that roadway between a tribally regulated tour bus and a passenger vehicle carrying tribal members.

3. Whether federal courts may decline to apply the consensual relationship exception of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), because nonmember conduct occurred on land deemed to be the equivalent of non-Indian fee land, where (a) the Supreme Court has indicated that Montana’s consensual relationship exception can justify tribal jurisdiction over nonmember conduct occurring on non-Indian fee land or its equivalent, and (b) there exists a consensual relationship of the qualifying kind between the tribe and the nonmembers.

4. Whether federal courts may deny that an Indian tribe has inherent civil jurisdiction, pursuant to the second Montana exception, over nonmembers’ commercial touring of tribal lands that results in a fatal tour bus/auto collision where (a) the nonmembers’ conduct implicates the tribe’s interests in governing itself, controlling internal relations, and superintending land use, and (b) the impact of the commercial touring activity, unconstrained by tribal regulatory authority, is demonstrably serious and imperils the tribe’s sovereign interests.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses (for third time) Prisoner Complaint against Navajo Police

June 18, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the orders in Francisco v. Navajo Nation Police Dept. (D. Ariz.):

18 DCT Order Granting IFP Status

20 DCT Order on First Amended Complaint

23 DCT Order on Second Amended Complaint

Tribal Immunity Does Not Block Third Party Subpoena in Ongoing Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Disputes

June 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development v. Cieslak (D. Nev.) & Grand Canyon Skywalk Development v. Steele (D. Ariz.):

1 Motion to Quash in 15-663 D. Ariz.

15 Reply re Motion to Quash in 15-663 D. Ariz.

125 DCT Order Denying Motion to Quash

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Interior Withdrawal of Grand Canyon Lands from Uranium Mining

April 20, 2015September 4, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the opening briefs in National Mining Assn. v. Jewell:

16 – Open Brief – no Addendum (Quaterra)

18 – Open Brief & Addendum (NMA)

20 – Open Brief (AEMA)

29 – Utah, AZ, NV, MT – Amicus in Favor of Reversal

Yount 9th Circuit Informal Appeal

US Brief

Tribal Amicus

Navajo Amicus

Intervenors Response Brief

Lower court order here; briefs here. Other materials here.

US and Industry Defeat Challenge to Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon Mine

April 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (D. Ariz.):

140-1 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary J

146-1 US Motion for Summary J

147-1 Intervenors Motion for Summary J

151 Plaintiffs Reply

155 US Reply

156 Intervenors Reply

166 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This case arises out of the proposed renewal of operations at the Canyon Mine in Northern Arizona. The Canyon Mine is a breccia pipe uranium mine located six miles south of Grand Canyon National Park, in the Kaibab National Forest, and four miles north of Red Butte, a culturally and religiously significant site for the Havasupai and other tribes.