District of South Dakota – Page 13

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Sues South Dakota over Taxes and Casino Regulation

November 24, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (D. S.D.):

An excerpt:

1. This action seeks a judgment declaring that, under federal law, the State of South Dakota does not have authority to impose its use tax on the use, storage or consumption, by nonmembers of the Tribe, on the Tribe’s reservation, of goods and services purchased by nonmembers from the Tribe at the Tribe’s gaming facility, which is operated pursuant to and in accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, (the “Tribe’s gaming facility” or the “Tribe’s Casino Complex”) and that the State lacks authority to require the Tribe to collect such use taxes from such non-member patrons and remit such taxes to the State.

2. This action also seeks a declaratory judgment that federal law prohibits the State of South Dakota from refusing to reissue alcoholic beverage licenses to the Tribe for the Tribe’s gaming facility on the basis that the Tribe has failed to remit to the Department of Revenue “all use tax incurred by nonmembers as a result of the operation of the licensed premises, and any other state tax.” SDCL § 35-2-24.

3. This action also seeks a declaratory judgment that pursuant to IGRA, the State of South Dakota does not have authority to regulate the Tribe’s sale of alcoholic beverages at the Tribe’s gaming facility.

Other materials:

Argus_Article_-_11202014

Letter_to_Tribal_Leadership_from_President_Reider

AT&T Sues Oglala Sioux Utility Commission over “Traffic Pumping”

October 20, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in AT&T v. Oglala Sioux Tribe Utility Commission (D. S.D.):

ATTvOSTUtilitiesCommetalComplaint2014

Motion for Preliminary Injunction Filed in Poor Bear v. County of Jackson (S.D. Native Voting Rights Act Case)

October 13, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the pleading in Poor Bear v. County of Jackson (D. S.D.):

13 Motion for PI

The complaint is here.

Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik Briefing Complete

October 1, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here:

Brief in Support of First Motion (July 2014)

Statement of Undisputed Facts (First Motion)

Due Process Motion (Second PSJ)

Due Process Undisputed Facts

Exhibit 1 (Hearing Transcripts) 502 pp

Exhibit 2 (Custody Orders) 113 pp.

Exhibit 7 (ICWA Affidavits) 145 pages

Exhibit 8 (Petitions for Temp Custody) 7 pages

DOJ Amicus Brief

128 Defendants Response to 1922 Motion

129 Defendants Response to Due Process Motion

OST46(ReplyBrief1922)

OST48(ReplyBriefDueProcess)

Most Vern Traversie Civil Rights/Hate Crimes Claims against Rapid City Regional Hospital Survive Summary Judgment Stage

September 22, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Traversie v. Rapid City Regional Hospital Inc. (D. S.D.):

38 Regional Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

39 Brief in Support of Regional Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

53 Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

60 Regional Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment

63 Order

Prior posts here and here.

Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment in Gaming Management Contract Matter

September 22, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Bettor Racing Inc. v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. S.D.):

53 Bettor Motion for Summary J

57-1 NIGC Cross Motion

59 Flandreau Cross Motion

62 Bettor Response to Flandreau

64 Bettor Response to NIGC

67 Flandreau Reply

68 NIGC Reply

71 DCT Order

Prior posts with materials here and here.

Voting Rights Act Complaint Filed by Natives in South Dakota

September 22, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the complaint in Poor Bear v. County of Jackson (D. S.D.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

This case arises from Defendants’ refusal to establish a satellite office for voter registration and in-person absentee voting in the Town of Wanblee on the Pine Ridge Reservation, thereby making voting less available to Native Americans in Jackson County in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, because in-person voter registration and in-person absentee voting are limited to the county seat of Kadok, Native American residents of Jackson County are required to travel, on average, approximately twice as far (and such travel takes approximately twice as much time) to take advantage of in-person registration and in-person absentee voting in comparison to white residents of Jackson County. Establishing a satellite office in Wanblee, on the other hand, would substantially reduce the distance and travel time for both groups, would essentially equalize the average travel time and distance for the two groups, and would thereby provide Native Americans an equivalent level of access to in-person registration and in-person absentee voting.

State Judges Respond to Oglala Sioux Tribe Motions for Summary Judgment

September 15, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik (D.S.D.):

128 Defendants Response to 1922 Motion

129 Defendants Response to Due Process Motion

The motions for summary judgment are here.

The evidentiary exhibits are here.

The DOJ amicus brief is here.

Federal Court Dismisses D.V. Offender’s Challenge to Revocation of Probation for Violation of Tribal Court Exclusion Order…With Concerns

August 26, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Nichols (D. S.D.):

44 Nichols Motion to Dismiss

45 US Response

49 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

An excerpt:

Steven Nichols, a non-Indian, was excluded from the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation. While his exclusion was in effect, he was seen driving on a public road within the reservation. Tribal officers stopped and detained him until an FBI agent arrived. The agent then arrested him for criminal trespass. Nichols claims that the tribe did not have the authority to ban him from using the road and that his federal trespass charge — built upon a tribal writ and order of exclusion — should be dismissed. Because (1) there exists latent factual issues that require an evidentiary foundation, (2)there has been no exhaustion of tribal remedies or any showing that some exception to the exhaustion prescription applies, and (3) there is no ambiguity in the language of the revocation petition as amended, Nichols’s dismissal motion must be denied, but without prejudice.