Here is the complaint in Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. Dept. of Interior (D. Mont.):
District of Montana
Federal Court Affirms Some 638 Contract Denials re: Northern Arapaho Tribe, Remands Others
Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Lacounte (D. Mont.):
131 NAT Motion for Summary Judgment
An excerpt:
The Court affirms the BIA’s declinations of NAT’s second and third judicial services proposals, wildlife resources management proposal, and water resources management proposal. The Court reverses the BIA’s declination of NAT’s youth court proposal, to the extent that the declination improperly relied upon post-hoc justifications, and NAT’s first judicial services proposal. We remand these proposals to the BIA for reconsideration.
Prior posts here.
Federal Manslaughter Conviction Stands over Alleged Bad Acts by Rocky Boy’s Police Officer
Here are the materials in United States v. Henderson (D. Mont.):
74 Motion to Set Aside Verdict
An excerpt:
The Court agrees with Henderson that if the jury would have heard the undisclosed impeaching evidence relating to Cabanas, they may have changed the way they viewed Cabanas’s testimony. The Court finds, however, that the absence of such evidence had no impact on the jury’s verdict given the relative insignificance of Cabanas’s testimony compared to the other witnesses, and the overwhelming weight of evidence against Henderson provided by other witnesses.
Indigenous Environmental Network Suit against Keystone XL Pipeline
Ninth Circuit Materials in False Claims Act Appeal against Salish Kootenai College
Here are the briefs in Cain v. Salish Kootenai College:
Oral argument video here.
Lower court materials in Cain v. Salish Kootenai College (D. Mont.):
Northern Cheyenne Tribe Sues Interior for Rescinding Coal Moratorium
Download(PDF): Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Link: Press Release
Motion for TRO Rejected in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. LaCounte
Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. LaCounte (D. Mont.):
147 DCT Order Denying Motion for TRO
An excerpt:
Negotiations concerning the operation of the two courts are ongoing. Interactions between the courts are, and will be, varied, continual, and context-specific. An order from the Court would prove an undesirable and perhaps unwieldy solution, particularly as opposed to a protocol negotiated by the parties. The Court especially is not the proper arbiter for the dispute while the parties continue to negotiate an MOU. An MOU would provide a set protocol that the Court could evaluate. The addition of an MOU to the factual record would aid the Court in coming to a more accurate, useful resolution to the issues presented.
Federal Court Suppresses Key Evidence Procured in Stop of Non-Indian by Tribal Police
Here are the materials in United States v. Cooley (D. Mont.):
An excerpt:
Normally, under Bressi, Officer Saylor would be required to determine whether Cooley was non–Indian shortly after seizing him. 575 F.3d at 896. However, Officer Saylor determined Cooley was non–Indian when Cooley initially rolled his window down. Because Cooley was non–Indian, Officer Saylor had the authority to detain Cooley only if it was “apparent” Cooley had violated state or federal law. Bressi, 575 F.3d at 896. Officer Saylor’s observations up to that point fell considerably below an “apparent” state or federal law violation. When Officer Saylor seized Cooley, he had observed bloodshot and watery eyes, no odor of alcohol, possible but unconfirmed slurred speech, two semi-automatic rifles, wads of cash in Cooley’s pocket, and answers to questions that seemed untruthful to him. Officer Saylor had also heard Cooley explain that he pulled over because he was tired—an occurrence Officer Saylor acknowledged was common on Highway 212—and that the vehicle did not belong to him but instead to a Thomas Spang or Thomas Shoulderblade, one of whom Officer Saylor suspected of drug activity and one of whom was a former probation officer. None of Cooley’s actions, whether taken individually or cumulatively, establish an obvious state or federal law violation. The Court holds Officer Saylor exceeded the scope of his authority when he detained Cooley. All evidence obtained subsequent to Cooley’s seizure is suppressed because it is “fruit of the poisonous tree.” United States v. Ramirez–Sandoval, 872 F.2d 1392, 1395 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 (1939)).
Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Major Crimes Act Conviction, Defendant Argued Justice Thomas’ View of Indian Law
Here are the materials in United States v. Bearcomesout (D. Mont.):
An excerpt:
Citing decades of “schizophrenic” case law, Bearcomesout argues that the law has evolved such that the Northern Cheyenne Tribe’s concept of self-governance and sovereignty has disappeared. As a result, Bearcomesout argues that the Tribe is “subject to the external whim of the United States” which inherently extinguishes the tribe’s sovereignty. Because the Tribe is not sovereign, Bearcomesout argues that her prosecution in Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court was in essence a federal prosecution, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The obvious disagreement about the state of tribal sovereignty among Supreme Court justices contained in various dissents and concurrences over the years unquestionably creates uncertainty and doubt about whether the term “independent sovereign” still appropriately applies to Indian tribes. Nevertheless, as recently as June of this year, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule from Wheeler and its progeny that tribal sovereignty continues to exist, at least as it relates to Double Jeopardy….
Updated Materials in Suit over N. Arapaho from Wind River Joint Business Council
Here are the new materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Lacounte (D. Mont.):
26 Shoshone Business Council Motion to Dismiss
28 Tribal Court Parties Motion to Intervene
40 Shoshone Business Council Response to 17
45 Shoshone Business Council Response to 28
50 DCT Order Denying Motion to Intervene
Complaint here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.