Here are the updated materials in State of Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe (D. Idaho):
The Court has before it Defendant Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 15) and Plaintiff the State of Idaho’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkts. 3, 4). The Court previously stayed this lawsuit based on the Tribe’s argument that the parties had agreed to arbitrate this dispute. See June 23, 2014 Order, Dkt. 35. Afterward, the Tribe changed its mind and decided it would prefer to litigate. The Court will therefore address the pending motions. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will deny the Tribe’s motion to dismiss and grant the State’s motion for injunctive relief.
Here are the materials in State of Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe (D. Idaho):
Here is the complaint in Idaho Conservation League v. USFS (D. Idaho):
Plaintiffs Idaho Conservation League and Nez Perce Tribe challenge the U. S. Forest Service’s approval of the Golden Meadows Exploration Project (Project) for violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project is a three-year mineral exploration project on the Payette and Boise National Forests in Valley County, Idaho, proposed by Canadian mining company Midas Gold, Inc. (MGI).
Here is the opinion in Evans v. Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Commission. The court’s syllabus:
Reversing in the district court’s denial of a motion for preliminary injunction and dismissal of an action seeking to enjoin tribal court proceedings, the panel held that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes lacked the power to regulate the land use of the plaintiff, a nonmember who owned land in fee simple within the Fort Hall Reservation.
The panel held that the plaintiff was not required to exhaust tribal remedies before bringing suit in federal court because the tribal court plainly lacked jurisdiction. The panel held that because the plaintiff was an owner of non-Indian fee land, the Tribes’ efforts to regulate him were presumptively invalid under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), and an exception for the regulation of nonmember activity that directly affects a tribe’s political integrity, economic security, health, or welfare did not apply. The panel reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Briefs and lower court materials are here.
Here are the materials in St. Isidore Farm LLC v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe of Indians (D. Idaho):
News coverage here.