The question here is whether an assault on a tribal officer can be prosecuted as an assault on a federal officer under the Major Crimes Act. The court concluded that whether the tribal cop is a federal cop must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here is the Court’s opinion in United States v. Danley.
Here is the opinion and materials in Buxton v. United States (D. S.D.):
Here, via Pechanga. The settlement documents are here.
An excerpt:
SIOUX FALLS — The U.S. government has settled three lawsuits against the Oglala Sioux Tribe that had sought to recover more than $800,000 in federal grant money.
A federal judge dismissed the lawsuits Tuesday as long as the tribe makes changes to its accounting practices.
According to the settlement, the government will forgo the $808,917 principal amount if the tribe has its accounting system certified by a licensed accountant, keeps a separate fund for each federal grant or contract and abides by other audit procedures.
The lawsuits said the tribe received millions of dollars from the Department of Health and Human Services in three grants. The government said audits found instances of noncompliance with terms of the grants, but the tribe had not appealed the audit results or returned the disputed money portions.
The court has dismissed the plaintiff’s claims that were not appealed to the tribal appellate court for failure to exhaust tribal remedies. Other claims remain extant due to a waiver of immunity.
Here are the materials:
DCT Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part
RST 2d Supplemental Memorandum
Prior materials are here.
Here is that agreement:
Here is the opinion in Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber (D. S.D.):
Summary judgment is denied on plaintiffs’ RLUIPA claim because genuine issues of material fact exist on whether defendants’ October 2009 policy substantially burdens plaintiffs’ religious exercise. Summary judgment is also denied on plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims because defendants offer no argument as to why summary judgment is appropriate on those claims. Summary judgment is granted on the AIRFA claim because AIRFA does not create an independent cause of action. Summary judgment is also granted on plaintiffs’ international law claims because the customary law claim is vague, the genocide claim lacks a factual basis, and the United Nations Charter claim does not create an individual cause of action.
Here are the materials in Colombe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.), a convoluted case originating in tribal court on whether the tribal court can pierce the corporate veil of a former gaming management partner of the Tribe:
Here is the opinion in Different Horse v. Salazar and Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.):
And the briefs:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.