Here are the materials in Granbois v. Fort Peck Tribal Jail (D. Mont.):
District of Montana
Federal Court Refuses to Reconsider Tribal Court Exhaustion Order
Here are the materials in Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Gervais (D. Mont.):
The original order is here.
Federal Court Dismisses Irrigation District’s Challenge to BIA Control of Flathead Irrigation Water
Here are the materials in Flathead Irrigation District v. Jewell (D. Mont.):
Crow Allottees Challenge to Crow Water Compact Dismissed on Federal Immunity Grounds
Here are the materials in Crow Allottees Association v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (D. Mont.):
Federal Court Dismisses Town of Browning v. Sharp, States Town Has Tribal Court Remedy
Here are the materials in Town of Browning v. Sharp (D. Mont.):
71 Sharp 12b1 Motion to Dismiss
73 Sharp 12b6 Motion to Dismiss
75 Sharp 12b7 Motion to Dismiss
115 Sharp Reply in Support of 75
An excerpt:
No adequate alternative forum exists to address the Town of Browning’s ex Parte Young action. The Blackfeet Tribal Court appears to represent an adequate alternative forum, however, to address the ongoing dispute between the Blackfeet Tribe and the Town of Browning. Indeed, in the Blackfeet Tribal Court, the Town of Browning can litigate against the Blackfeet Tribe directly rather than through an ex Parte Young action. Further, the Town of Browning appears to have moderated its position regarding the relief that it seeks. (Doc. 159). The Town of Browning appears to seek some reasonable compensation from the Blackfeet Tribe for use of the Town of Browning’s water main to deliver water to utility customers. The Town of Browning can seek and obtain this relief as a counterclaim in the breach of contract claim currently pending in the Blackfeet Tribal Court. Although the Town of Browning has challenged the Blackfeet Tribal Court’s jurisdiction over it on the grounds of sovereign immunity, the existence of a contract between the parties appears to confer jurisdiction on the Blackfeet Tribal Court. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). An alternative forum exists for the Town of Browning to obtain the relief it seeks.
After weighing the factors listed in Rule 19(b), this Court has determined that this case should not proceed in the absence of the Blackfeet Tribe, a required party. The potential prejudice to the Blackfeet Tribe far outweighs the harm to the Town of Browning. The Blackfeet Tribal Court represents an alternative forum for the Town of Browning to address its underlying dispute with the Blackfeet Tribe.
Materials on the preliminary injunction stage of this litigation are here.
Federal Court Denies Town’s Motion for Injunction against Blackfeet Tribe Officials in Utility Dispute
Here are the materials in Town of Browning v. Sharp (D. Mont.):
Prior post here.
Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Suit Brought against Utility in Blackfeet Tribal Court
Here are the materials in Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Gervais (D. Mont.):
An excerpt:
The Court at this juncture simply must determine whether jurisdiction is “plainly” lacking. The standard set forth in Grand Canyon Skywalk applies to this case irrespective ofthe ambiguous nature of the land ownership. Glacier Electric’s actions, at the minimum, amount to an intrusion on the Blackfeet Tribe’s right to exclude. Glacier Electric’s actions could be subject to the Blackfeet Tribe’s right to regulate and adjudicate non-members based on interference with its right to exclude.
Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Suit Brought against Pharmaceutical Company in Blackfeet Tribal Court
Here are the materials in Takeda Pharmaceuticals America v. Connelly (D. Mont.):
An excerpt:
The Court at this juncture simply must determine whether Blackfeet Tribal Court “plainly” lacks jurisdiction. The IHS facility sits on leased Indian land. This fact, by itself, amounts to a colorable claim of jurisdiction. The Blackfeet Tribal Court maintains a colorable claim of jurisdiction based on the alleged conduct on tribal trust land. This determination precludes analysis at this point as to whether either Montana exception provides a colorable basis for Blackfeet Tribal Court jurisdiction. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Ct., 2012 WL 1144331 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
CSKT Allotment Owner’s Trust Breach Claims Dismissed
Here are the materials in Liberty v. Jewell (D. Mont.):
Ninth Circuit Reverses Judgment Favoring Crow Nation against HUD
Here is the opinion in Crow Tribal Housing Authority v. HUD.
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel vacated the district court’s order remanding the case to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for a hearing, reversed the judgment, and remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of HUD in a case brought by the Crow Tribal Housing Authority, arising from a dispute involving Indian housing block grants made under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.
The panel held that the district court erred in ruling that HUD violated Crow Housing’s right to Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996’s notice and reporting requirements under 25 U.S.C. §§ 4161 and 4165.
Specifically, the panel concluded that HUD did not act under § 4161, and accordingly, could not have violated a hearing requirement under that section. The panel further concluded that HUD’s actions triggered the opportunity for a hearing under § 4165 when it conducted an on-site review of Crow Housing in August 2004. Finally, the panel held that because Crow Housing did not request a hearing, HUD did not violate its statutory obligation under § 4165 and did not improperly deprive Crow Housing of a hearing under the facts of the case.
Briefs and materials are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.