Here are the materials in Gila River Indian Community v. Burwell (D. Ariz.):
District of Arizona
Federal Court Denies Western Sky-Related Debt Collector’s Arbitration Claims; Class Action under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act May Proceed
Here are the materials in Bopp v. Zenith Financial Network Inc. (D. Ariz.):
Hopi Member Claim of IHS Administrative Negligence under FTCA Survives Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Shortman v. Robideaux (D. Ariz.):
An excerpt:
In August 2012, Shortman still had not heard from IHS. Walgreens and the Trustees again agreed to cover the cost of Shortman’s medications while IHS completed its eligibility evaluation. Id. By the end of September, Shortman still had not heard from IHS; Walgreens and the Trustees were growing concerned with continuing to fund her medications. Id. at 10-11. On September 27, 2012, Shortman turned to the White House for help. Id. Representatives from the White House [4] contacted IHS concerning Shortman’s application for medication. Id. That day, IHS completed the eligibility review process and determined that Shortman was eligible for her medication. Id. By that point, Walgreens, unaware of the decision at IHS, had advanced a month’s supply of medicine for delivery at the Hopi clinic. Id.
Ninth Circuit Holds Strate Governs Navajo Civil Jurisdiction over Nonmembers on State Highways
Here is the unpublished memorandum. An excerpt:
Appellants conceded at oral argument that the Navajo Nation has not retained the right to exclude nonmembers on U.S. Highway 160. Consequently, the highway is the equivalent of non-Indian fee land for jurisdictional purposes, and this case is governed by Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). See Strate, 520 U.S. at 455-56.
Briefs and oral argument materials here.
Federal district court materials here.
Tribal court materials here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs and Oral Argument Audio in EXC Inc. v. Jensen
Ninth Circuit Files Amended Opinion in EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co.
Here. The amendment appears minor:
At Slip Op. 22, 768 F.3d at 974, the sentence beginning with <The Indian preference exemption> and ending with <does not extend to Indians.> is deleted and replaced with:
The Indian preference exemption contained in Section 703(i) is therefore necessary to clarify that Title VII’s prohibition against racial or national origin discrimination does not extend to preferential hiring of Indians living on or near reservations.
Panel materials here.
SCOTUS Denies Cert in Two Indian Law Cases
Here is today’s order list.
The Court denied cert in Dupris v. Procter and Hicks v. Hudson Insurance.
Federal Court Dismisses Koniag Effort to Evict Airline and Cabin from Its Lands
Here are the materials in Koniag Inc. v. Andrew Airways (D. Alaska):
An excerpt:
At Docket 36, Defendant Alicia L. Reft (“Reft”) filed a Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss Complaint against Alicia Reft in her Capacity as President of Karluk Tribal Council and Individual Capacity. At Docket 39, Plaintiff Koniag, Inc. (“Koniag”) filed its Opposition to Reft’s Second Motion to Dismiss and Reft filed a reply at Docket 42. Oral argument was held on January 7, 2014.1 Thereafter, the parties attempt to settle the dispute for several months but the discussions ultimately appear to have been unsuccessful.2 For the following reasons, the Court will grant Reft’s motion.
Federal Court Affirms Interior Withdrawal of Grand Canyon Lands from Uranium Mining
Here is the order in Yount v. Jewell (D. Ariz.):
Ninth Circuit Affirms Title VII Exemption for Tribal Preference in Employment`
Here is the opinion in EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co.:
The syllabus:
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with respect to its claim that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited the tribal hiring preference contained in Peabody Western Coal Co. leases with the Navajo Nation.
The panel held that the Navajo hiring preference in the leases was a political classification, rather than a classification based on national origin, and therefore did not violate Title VII. The panel concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants Peabody Western Coal Company and Navajo Nation, and third-party defendant Secretary of the Interior. The panel also held that the EEOC waived on appeal its record-keeping claim. Finally, the panel held that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the EEOC’s eleventh-hour motion to supplement the record with a declaration and documents about Peabody’s hiring practices in 1999.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.