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.):

84 Settlement Agreement

90 Tribe Motion to Clarify

95 Federal Opposition

98 Reply

103-1 Tribe Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

104 Federal Opposition

105 Reply

109 DCT Order

And here are related materials in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. United States (D. Idaho):

21 Amended Complaint

41 US Motion to Dismiss

59 DCT Order Issuing Stay

FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Cert Petition [Updated]



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.


Brief in Opposition


US Invitation Brief

FMC Supplemental Brief

Ninth Circuit Affirms Tribal Jurisdiction in FMC v. Shoshone-Bannock

Here is the opinion in FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

Briefs here.


En Banc Petition

Amicus Brief

CA9 Order Denying Petition

Ninth Circuit Briefs in FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes


FMC Opening Brief

Tribal Appellee Brief

FMC Reply

Tribe Reply

Prior posts here.

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Bring Land Claim

Here is the complaint in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. United States (D. Idaho):

1 Complaint

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

67-3 FMC Motion on Montana 1

67-4 FMC Motion on Montana 2

72 FMC Opposition re Montana 1

73 FMC Opposition re Montana 2

74 FMC Opposition re Tribal Process

75 Tribe Response re Process

76 Tribe Response re Montana 1

77 Tribe Response re Montana 2

80 Tribe Reply re Process

81 Tribe Reply re Montana 1

82 Tribe Reply re Montana 2

83 FMC Reply re Process

84 FMC Reply re Montana 2

85 FMC Reply re Montana 1

95 DCT Order

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):

1 Complaint + Exhibits

6-1 Motion to Dismiss

10 Response

12 Reply

16 DCT Order

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

Download complaint here.

Link to news coverage here.

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.

Briefs here. The tribal court decision below is here.