Here:
Cert stage materials here.
District of Idaho
D.C. Federal Court Instructs Sho-Ban Tribe to Seek Idaho Federal Court Review of Claims the U.S. Violated a Trust Breach Settlement Agreement
Here are the materials in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):
103-1 Tribe Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement
And here are related materials in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. United States (D. Idaho):
FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Cert Petition [Updated]
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly holds that tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers is established whenever a Montana exception is met, or whether, as the Seventh and Eighth Circuits have held, a court must also determine that the exercise of such jurisdiction stems from the tribe’s inherent authority to set conditions on entry, preserve tribal self-government, or control internal relations.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit has construed the Montana exceptions to swallow the general rule that tribes lack jurisdiction over nonmembers.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Ninth Circuit Affirms Tribal Jurisdiction in FMC v. Shoshone-Bannock
Ninth Circuit Briefs in FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Bring Land Claim
Here is the complaint in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. United States (D. Idaho):
An excerpt:
By this action the Tribes seek to resolve unsettled rights to land that has been abandoned or relinquished by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPR) in Pocatello, Idaho. The Tribes want to protect Tribal interests and remove a long-standing obstacle to prudent land use in the community.
Federal Court Holds Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Have Authority to Impose $1.5M Annual Permit Fee on FMC Corp.
Here is the order in FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (D. Idaho):
64-1 Tribe Motion on Montana 1
65-1 Tribe Motion on Montana 2
66-1 Tribe Motion on Tribal Process
67-2 FMC Motion on Tribal Process
72 FMC Opposition re Montana 1
73 FMC Opposition re Montana 2
74 FMC Opposition re Tribal Process
76 Tribe Response re Montana 1
77 Tribe Response re Montana 2
News coverage here.
Idaho Federal Court Holds Tribe’s Effort to Enforce Tribal Judgment Must Be Dismissed Unless Tribe is Seeking an Order on Tribal Court Jurisdiction
Here are the materials in Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Hawks (D. Idaho):
An excerpt:
But here, the Hawks have not challenged the Tribal Court‘s jurisdiction to make the award, and the Tribe has not sought a declaratory judgment that its courts had jurisdiction over the Hawks. Instead, the Tribe is simply asking a federal court to domesticate and enforce a Tribal Court Judgment. While such a claim has a basis in Idaho law and can be enforced in Idaho courts pursuant to Idaho Code § 10-1401 et. seq., the Tribe cites no federal statute or law that is in dispute and that could be used to create a federal question.
Nez Perce Files Suit Over Final Decision in Clear Creek Project
Federal Court Denies Discovery into Tribal Judicial Bias Claims
Here is the order in FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (D. Idaho):
43 DCT Order Denying Discovery
An excerpt:
To allow a litigant to conduct full-blown discovery here, after he failed to conduct discovery in the tribal court litigation, would ignore National Farmers and Iowa Mutual. Those cases directed that all issues be fully presented to the tribal court so that it might cure any problems and give the federal court the benefit of its expertise. If a due process issue like judicial bias is not fully developed through discovery before being presented to the tribal court – and the litigant simply sits on his discovery rights until he gets into federal court – the tribal court never gets a chance to review the discovery, apply its expertise, and cure any unfair judicial bias revealed by the discovery. That is antithetical to the analysis of National Farmers and Iowa Mutual.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.