Here is the order denying Alltel’s motion for a TRO to shut down a tribal court proceeding brought by the Oglala Sioux Tribe: Alltel Communications v Oglala Sioux Tribe.
The court wrote:
That under the guidance of Lien and Gaming World, the court recognizes comity and honors the right of the Oglala Sioux Tribal Court, in the first instance, to determine whether it has jurisdiction to consider the defendant tribe’s petition for preliminary injunction in tribal court action Civ. # 09-0673.
Here is that order: DCT Order Denying TRO
The motion is here.
The case is Janis v. Nelson (D. S.D.). The court recently denied summary judgment in favor of the state. Here are some of the materials so far:
Janis v Nelson DCT Order on Motion for Summary J
Janis v Nelson DCT Order on Motion for Protective Order
An excerpt from the summary judgment order:
In summary, plaintiffs allege that their names were unlawfully removed from the statewide and county voter registration rolls after having been sentenced to probation for their felony convictions and that they were not given the opportunity to cast provisional ballots despite the existence of both federal and state laws authorizing the use of provisional ballots if a question exists about voter eligibility. Plaintiffs also allege that their voting rights under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act have been denied because defendants’ actions have a disparate and negative impact on Native Americans and that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is being violated because defendants’ actions constitute a change in voting practices and procedures that has not been precleared. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, monetary, and other forms of relief.
Here is the initial opinion denying Crow Creek Sioux Tribe’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and HUD’s first motion to dismiss — Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v Donovan Initial DCT Order
And the materials:
Here is the news article on the IRS plans to auction off the LeMaster Ranch, formerly owned by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. And here is the Tribe’s motion for a TRO that apparently failed yesterday:
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Motion for TRO
An excerpt from the article:
The Internal Revenue Service plans to auction land on one of America’s poorest Indian reservations today, after efforts Wednesday to block the sale in U.S. District Court failed.
According to a federal lawsuit filed by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, the IRS intends to auction the land to settle delinquent federal employment taxes it maintains are owed by the tribe.
On Wednesday, a judge denied the restraining order seeking to block the sale, but, according to Terry Pechota, the attorney for Crow Creek Tribal Farms, the judge indicated that he would set the case for trial.
The auction will occur, but no land would change hands until after a court date in late March, said Duane St. John, a member of the tribal council.
The tribe has been planning to develop wind energy, and “this is our prime wind energy land,” St. John said. “So that’s going to be another big hurt to us.”
Here is the opinion in Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate v. Dept. of State (D.S.D.) — Sisseton v Dept of State
This is an interesting case involving the President’s inherent authority to authorize an international oil pipeline as a part of his foreign affairs power.
An excerpt:
I want to emphasize that the granting of this motion will not give the defendants a free pass to “do-as-they-please.” They will, of course, still be subjected to the rigorous federal environmental and historical preservation laws throughout the construction and operation phases of the proposed pipeline. In this case, however, the court lacks the authority to strike down the issuance of the permit. Alternatively, if the court did have such power, I find that a good faith effort was made to identify historic properties that may be affected by this project.
Here is the opinion and judgment in Owen v. United States (D. S.D.), a FTCA case — Owen v USA
Here is the final memorandum and opinion — and verdict — in Necklace v. Aiken — Necklace v. Aiken Judgment.
Our previous posting on this case is here.
Here is the opinion in Kirbie-Orozco v. Yankton Sioux Tribal Election Board (D. S.D.) (Kirbie-Orozco v Yankton). Here you are:
In each case, a court has an obligation to determine its jurisdiction. The court finds that it possesses no subject matter jurisdiction over this intra-tribal matter. In re Sac & Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa / Meskwaki Casino Litigation, 340 F.3d 749, 763-64 (8th Cir.2003); Runs After v. United States, 766 F.2d 347, 352 (8th Cir.1985); see also Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 406[1][b][ii] (Nell Jessup Newton, ed.) 2005.
Here is the April 29, 2009 order from the D. S.D. dismissing Count III in United States v. Graham — DCT Order Dismissing Graham Indictment
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.