District of Arizona – Page 17

Uranium Companies and Others Challenge Secretarial Withdrawal of Lands Around Grand Canyon on Establishment Grounds

May 20, 2013May 21, 2013Matthew Campbell4 Comments

In January of 2012, Secretary Salazar announced that he was withdrawing lands near the Grand Canyon. Specifically, the withdrawal prohibits new mining claims and development on old claims that lack “valid existing rights.”

Recently, uranium companies and others have challenged the withdrawal. A portion of Yount’s Second Amended Complaint:

SIXTH CLAIM
The Secretary of the Interior’s rationale for a withdrawal as stated in his Record of Decision is substantially based on granting an unconstitutional preference for the religious belief of Native Americans proximate to the NAPWA. By deferring to Native American religious and cultural beliefs this appears to convey a message of government endorsement of their religious beliefs contrary to established law.

A portion of Quaterra Alaska, Inc.’s Amended Complaint:

Federal law does not recognize the right to preclude land uses
based solely on religious or cultural sensibilities. Sensibilities or feelings that are separate from a site protected under the NHPA or religious practice protected by RLUIPA and enjoy no legal protection. A withdrawal based on protecting sensibilities independent of legally protected sites and religious practices is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to
law. It is based on irrelevant factors not recognized in law and exceeds the Secretary’s authority.

Tohono O’odham Nation Largely Prevails in Compact Breach Dispute with Arizona — One Issue Remains

May 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is yesterday’s order in Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order

An excerpt:

Defendant Tohono O’odham Nation (the “Nation”) plans to construct and operate a major casino on unincorporated land within the outer boundaries of the City of Glendale, Arizona, which is in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. The State of Arizona, the Gila River Indian Community, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (collectively “Plaintiffs”) argue that the proposed casino violates the 2002 Gaming Compact between the State of Arizona and the Nation (“the Compact”), and ask the Court to enjoin the casino’s construction. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Court heard oral arguments on April 9, 2013. For reasons explained below, the Court will grant the Nation’s motion for summary judgment on all but one of Plaintiffs’ claims, and will require additional briefing on the remaining claim.

Briefs are here.

Federal Court Gives Full Faith and Credit to Navajo Customary Adoption Order

April 30, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

A small part of this case, but important nonetheless. Here are the materials in Kinlichee v. United States (D. Ariz.):

Chinle District Court Order Validating Adoption

DCT Order Denying US Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order re Settlement

Federal Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs’ Response

From the opinion:

It is undisputed that Ms. Davis is a Navajo and that Mr. Kinlichee was as well. (Doc. 52–1 at 1–2). It is undisputed that the alleged negligence in this case occurred within the Navajo Nation. (Doc. 1 at 1–2). It is undisputed that Ms. Davis obtained an order in the Family Court of the Navajo Nation validating her Navajo common law adoption by Mr. Kinlichee. (Doc. 52–1 at 1–10). Although the adoption was posthumous as to Mr. Kinlichee and retroactive to 2003, the Navajo court granted the adoption. See (Doc. 52–1 at 1, 10).

Additionally, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a state must give full faith and credit to adoption decrees issued by the tribal court of a Native American sovereign. Venetie I.R.A. Council v. Alaska, 944 F.2d 548, 562 (9th Cir.1991). There is no issue known to the Court, or raised here, suggesting that the Navajo Nation lacks the status of a Native American sovereign, and its tribal court granted Ms. Davis an adoption order. If Ms. Davis had been legally adopted by Mr. Kinlichee in another state, and then became a tort plaintiff in the District of Arizona, that adoption likely would not be questioned, or legally analyzed for its merits, before Ms. Davis would be granted standing. Accordingly, this Court must recognize the order of the Navajo court validating Mr. Kinlichee’s adoption of Ms. Davis.

Therefore, as to Ms. Davis, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing.