District of Arizona

NCAI Press Release in Support of Diane Humetewa and John Tuchi Federal Judicial Nominations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher
NCAI Applauds President’s Nominations of Diane Humetewa and John Tuchi for Federal District Court Judge in Arizona; 
Confirmation will make Humetewa First American Indian Woman Federal Judge
 
Washington, DC – The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has endorsed President Obama’s nomination of Diane J. Humetewa from the Hopi Tribe to serve as a United States District Court Judge for the District of Arizona. Senator John McCain of Arizona is credited with recommending the nomination. Upon confirmation, Humetewa will be the first American Indian woman in history to serve as a federal judge. Humetewa served as the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona from 2007 to 2009 under President George W. Bush.
 
NCAI also endorsed the President’s nomination of John Joseph Tuchi to serve as a United States District Court Judge for the District of Arizona. Tuchi’s service as Tribal Liaison from 2009-2012 demonstrated his knowledge of federal Indian law and his commitment to the critical role of tribes in the American family of governments. His nomination has the strong support of tribes in Arizona.
 
“These nominations are a significant step forward for Indian Country. Diane Humetewa is highly qualified and has been recognized and nominated for important federal positions by both Present Obama and President Bush. John Tuchi is highly qualified and has a strong record of upholding the trust responsibility to tribal nations. NCAI endorses the President’s nominations and we urge the Senate to move quickly to confirm them both,” said NCAI President Jefferson Keel.
 
“This also represents a great step forward for the federal courts. For many years we have stressed the importance of including Native Americans in the federal judiciary. Senator McCain should be applauded for recommending the nomination of Ms. Humetewa,” added Keel. “We have also underscored the need for all federal judges to understand federal Indian law. Mr. Tuchi has a firsthand understanding of the importance of federal Indian law, an asset that is far too rare among federal judges.”
 
NCAI First Vice Present Juana Majel also praised the nomination of Humetewa. “In 2013 we have witnessed the passage of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization that included extraordinarily important protections for Native women. With the nomination of Diane Humetewa to be the first Native woman to be a federal judge, 2013 is truly a landmark year for Native women.”
 
Biographies provided by the White House:
Diane J. Humetewa: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa currently serves as Special Advisor to the President and Special Counsel in the Office of General Counsel at Arizona State University.  She is also a Professor of Practice at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.  From 2009 to 2011, Humetewa was Of Counsel with Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP.  She worked in the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of Arizona from 1996 to 2009, serving as Senior Litigation Counsel from 2001 to 2007 and as the United States Attorney from 2007 to 2009.  During her tenure in the United States Attorney’s Office, Humetewa also served as Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General from 1996 to 1998.  From 1993 to 1996, she was Deputy Counsel for the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.  Humetewa received her J.D. in 1993 from Arizona State University College of Law and her B.S. in 1987 from Arizona State University.  She is a member of the Hopi Indian Tribe and, from 2002 to 2007, was an Appellate Court Judge for the Hopi Tribe Appellate Court. 
 
John Joseph Tuchi: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
John Joseph Tuchi has been an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Arizona since 1998.  He currently serves as Chief Assistant United States Attorney in the office and has previously served as Interim United States Attorney in 2009, Senior Litigation Counsel and Tribal Liaison from 2009 to 2012, and as Chief of the Criminal Division from 2006 to 2009.  Tuchi also worked as an associate at the law firm of Brown & Bain, P.A. from 1995 to 1998.  He began his legal career as a law clerk for Judge William C. Canby of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Tuchi received his J.D. magna cum laude in 1994 from Arizona State University College of Law, his M.S. in 1989 from the University of Arizona, and his B.S. in 1987 from West Virginia University.

Federal Court Refuses to Enjoin US Forest Service Decision to Reopen Canyon Uranium Mine

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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

DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs’ Motion for PI

USFS Response

Plaintiffs’ Reply

Reply Brief in EXC, Inc. v. Jensen

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Jensen Reply

 

Federal Court Dismisses Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Complaint Seeking Arbitration against Hualapai Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Hualapai Indian Tribe of Arizona (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration

First Amended Complaint

Amended Complaint Exhibit Set 1

Amended Complaint Exhibit Set 2

Hualapai Motion to Dismiss

Hualapai Motion to Disqualify

Charlton Declaration

Rhodes Affidavit

GCSD Opposition

Greenberg Traurig Opposition to Motion to Disqualify

Harrison Declaration

Overton Declaration

Overton Exhibit Set 1

Overton Exhibit Set 2

Overton Exhibit Set 3

Quasala Declaration

Hualapai Reply in Support of Motion to Disqualify

Hualapai Reply in Support of MTD

From the opinion:

Defendants Hualapai Indian Tribe and seven named members of the Hualapai Tribal Council have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Grand Canyon Skywalk Development, LLC’s (GCSD) first amended complaint to compel arbitration. Doc. 19; see Doc. 18. The motion has been fully briefed. Docs. 21, 29. Defendants also have filed a motion to disqualify Greenberg Traurig (GT) as counsel for GCSD and for related orders protecting theTribe’s confidential information. Doc. 25. GT has filed a response in opposition which GCSD joined. Docs. 43, 37. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss GCSD’s first amended complaint, and deny Defendant’s motion to disqualify GCSD’s counsel and for related orders.

Prior post on this specific suit is here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

EEOC Opening Brief

Federal Appellee Brief

Navajo Answer Brief

Peabody Coal Answer Brief

Reply TK EEOC Reply

Lower court materials here.

Answer Brief in EXC, Inc. v. Jensen

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

EXC Answer Brief

Opening briefs are here.

Tohono O’odham Nation Seeks More than $4Million in Attorney Fees from State of Arizona

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the motion in State of Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation (D. Ariz.):

TON Motion for Attorney Fees

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348 reads:

A. In addition to any costs that are awarded as prescribed by statute, a court shall award fees and other expenses to any party other than this state or a city, town or county that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in any of the following:

1. A civil action brought by the state or a city, town or county against the party.

Prior post here. H/T here.

 

Federal Magistrate Decides (Non-)Indian Status of Defendant in General Crimes Act Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Loera (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Loera Motion to Dismiss — Indian Status

USA Response

An excerpt:

Defendant’s motion and the government’s response raise matters for the Court’s consideration which other courts have left for another day. See Means v. Navajo Nation, 432 F.3d 924, 934–35 (9th Cir.2005). The resolution of the issues requires the Court to journey into the world of “Indian Law” which has been described as a “complex patchwork of federal, state and tribal law, which is better explained by history than by logic.” United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir.2005) (internal quotations omitted). Indian law has also been described as “schizophrenic”: “Federal Indian policy is, to say the least, schizophrenic. And the confusion continues to inform federal Indian law …” United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 219, 124 S.Ct. 1628, 1644–45 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring).

Another:

This case presents a unique factual and jurisdictional conundrum apparently of first impression. Notwithstanding the 1990 amendments to the Indian Civil Rights Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe has declined to prosecute a defendant who may be an “Indian” and the Tribe’s decision is apparently based solely on the defendant’s lack of tribal membership, i.e., the Tribal Court has determined it does not have jurisdiction under its laws.

And finally:

Since its first enactment in 1817 (3 Stat. 383), additions added in 1854 (10 Stat. 270), sequent codification in 18 U.S.C. § 1152, and the enactment and amendment of the Indian Civil Rights Act, the language of section 1152 has never been amended, yet the government has entered into nine separate treaties with thirteen separate and distinct tribes obligating the federal government to remove all “bad men” from those tribes’ lands and prosecute them in federal courts when requested by the Tribe, exactly what occurred in this matter. In order to give validity to those treaties, as the Court is obligated to do, and which Congress has not repealed, and even though the treaties are with tribes other than the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the use of the term “Indian” in section 1152 must, as Judge Sneed concluded, mean an Indian who is a tribal member. As such, should this Court have concluded Defendant was an “Indian” section 1152 would not grant him immunity from federal prosecution as he is not a tribal member.

Update in Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation — Remaining Contract Claims Defeated

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in State of Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order June 25

Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief

TON Supplemental Brief

An excerpt:

For reasons explained below, the Court concludes that §§ 201(1) and 201(2) cannot be used by Plaintiffs to establish an enforceable oral agreement that the Nation would not open a casino in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The Court has already held that the  Compact between the State and the Nation includes no such agreement, and that even Plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence does not make the Compact’s terms reasonably susceptible to such a reading. Doc. 216. The Court now concludes that the Compact is a fully integrated written agreement under Chapter 9 of the Restatement, and that such an agreement between the parties forecloses any separate oral agreement. As a result, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of the Nation on Plaintiffs’ § 201(2) claim and deny Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration on the § 201(1) claim.

This concludes the trial court proceedings, mostly concluded in the court’s order granting summary judgment on most claims we posted about here.

Opening Ninth Circuit Briefs in EXC v. Jensen — Navajo Court Jurisdiction over Nonmember

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Opening Brief

Navajo Nation Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.