The case, once again, is Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber (D. S.D.):
The court previously issued an order explaining how the ban violates federal religious freedom rights here.
Since the prison system could not agree with the prisoners on a way to craft an injunction, Judge Schreier simply issued an order stating, “[D]efendants are enjoined from banning tobacco used during Native American religious ceremonies.”
Here are the materials in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.):
RST Cross Motion for Summary J
An excerpt:
Colombe now asks this Court to rule on the sole remaining issue from this Court’s September 23, 2011 Opinion and Order: Whether the Tribal Court had jurisdiction to hold that the oral modification to the NIGC-approved management contract was void. Colombe argues that the NIGC has the sole, exclusive authority to determine whether modifications to NIGC-approved management contracts can have any legal effect. Doc. 49 at 6-7. Colombe also argues that Defendants’ Tribal Court suit is prohibited because IGRA does not authorize a private cause of action. Doc. 49 at 8. Defendants counter that the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Supreme Court had jurisdiction to rule on the legal validity of the oral, unapproved modification to the approved management contract after Colombe raised the modification as a defense in the Tribe’s underlying contract suit. Doc. 59; Doc. 60. Defendants also assert that its Tribal Court suit is not for a “claimed IGRA violation” and therefore does not need to be authorized by the IGRA. Doc. 57 at 19.
Here are the materials on the Sept. 2011 order, and on the motion for reconsideration.
Here are the materials in Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co. (D. S.D.):
DCT Order Requiring Tribal Court Exhaustion
Long Family Tribal Court Complaint
Plains Commerce Federal Court Complaint [plus tribal court docs]
Plains Commerce Motion for TRO
Plains Commerce Motion for Summary J
You may recall from Justice Pommersheim’s opinion from way back in the last decade that Plains Commerce only challenged the discrimination claim against it, not the bad faith or breach of contract claims. And since the money damages verdict was a general verdict, any of the surviving claims may support the verdict.
Strange case, turning on a lack of personal jurisdiction in the Oglala Sioux Tribal Court.
Here are the materials in United States v. Lopez (D. S.D.):
DCT Order Dismissing Indictment
Here are the materials in Archambault v. United States (D. S.D.):
Here are the materials in United States v. Farlee (D. S.D.):
Here is the opinion in Fuller v. Salazar (D. S.D.):
Interesting opinion.
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Howard J. Fuller, III (“Fuller”), acting pro se, sued Defendant Kenneth L. Salazar, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, claiming employment discrimination. Doc. 1. Fuller asserts that, while at the Indian Police Academy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and while training as a police officer, Fuller was subject to actionable racial discrimination because of his Native American heritage. Fuller also claims that adverse employment action later was taken against him because of his race as an American Indian. Doc. 1. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, Doc. 23, which this Court grants for the reasons explained below.
Here is the complaint in LeBeau v. United States (D. S.D.):
Excerpts:
Plaintiffs Casimir L. LeBeau, Clarence Mortenson, Raymond Charles Handboy, Sr., and Freddie Lebeau (collectively “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the putative classes set forth below, bring this Complaint against the United States of America (“Defendant”), and bring this claim based upon an unlawful taking without just compensation of thousands of acres of land owned by Plaintiffs and other individuals. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief ordering Defendant to perform its fiduciary duties as trustee of the individual Plaintiffs’ trust monies pursuant to federal law and common law trust principles, including an accounting of the monies owed to Plaintiffs and the putative classes.
***
1. Nearly seventy years ago, Congress enacted a law authorizing the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a number of water control projects. Among these projects was the Pick Sloan Missouri River Basin Project (the “Pick-Sloan Project”), which involved the construction of six hydroelectric dams in the upper Missouri river basin. One of these dams, the Oahe Dam, impounds Lake Oahe, an artificial reservoir stretching almost the entire distance from Pierre, South Dakota, to Bismarck, North Dakota.2. In building the Oahe Dam and creating Lake Oahe, the United States flooded a vast area of North and South Dakota, including over 104,420 acres of land, some of which was owned by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (the “Tribe”) and some of which was owned in allotments or in fee by individual members of the Tribe (the “Individual Landowners”). The Individual Landowners were required to evacuate their homes and abandon their land and its valuable resources to make way for an energy project benefiting only those downriver.
3. The Oahe Dam destroyed more Indian land than any other United States public works project. Over 180 families – 30% of the tribal population – were forced to leave their homes and sever the profound cultural connection that they had to the land.
Here are the materials in Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber (D. S.D.):
Earlier materials on this case were here.
The federal court denied the state’s motion to dismiss. Here are the updated materials in Brooks v. Gant (D. S.D.):
South Dakota Motion to Dismiss
DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
The complaint is here.
The court previously denied a motion for preliminary injunction:
DCT Order Denying Motion for PI
The ACLU submitted an amicus brief:
Now, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is pending:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.