Federal Court Bars South Dakota from Collecting Taxes on Non-Indian Contractors Working on Tribal Casino Construction Project

Here are the materials in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Sattgast (D.S.D.):

32 State Motion for Summary J

75 Flandreau Motion for Summary J

78 State Opposition

81 Flandreau Opposition

87 State Reply

89 Flandreau Reply

102 DCT Order

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Sues FCC over Infrastructure

Here is the complaint in Crow Creek Tribe of South Dakota v. FCC (D.S.D.):

1 Complaint

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Stanko v. Oglala Sioux Tribe [traffic ticket]

Here:

Stanko First Brief

Tribe Answer Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Declines to Suppress Statements Made by Criminal Suspect to Tribal Police

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

32 Motion to Suppress Statements

33 Motion to Suppress Guilty Plea

36 US Response

45 Objection

44 Magistrate Report

47 DCT Order

Oglala Sioux Tribe Opioid Suit

Here is the complaint in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Purdue Pharma LP (D.S.D.):

Complaint

Federal Court Dismisses Pro Se Property Suit Arising at the Rosebud

Here are the materials in Fox v. Columbe (D.S.D.):

8 Motion to Dismiss

9 DCT Order

Sioux Tribes Sue Opioid Companies

Here is the complaint captioned Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Purdue Pharma LP (D.S.D.):

Complaint

Federal Court Dismisses Pro Se Attack on Oglala Sioux Tribe (over a traffic ticket)

Here are the materials in Stanko v. Oglala Sioux Tribe (D.S.D.):

8 Motion to Dismiss

9 Response

10 Reply

12 DCT Order

Federal Court Issues Split Decision in Flandrea Santee Sioux — South Dakota Tax Dispute

Here are the materials in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (D. S.D.):

79 State Motion for Summary J

117 Flandreau Motion for Summary J

124 State Opposition

130 Flandreau Opposition

136 Flandreau Reply

154 DCT Order

An excerpt:

1. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is GRANTED to the extent that:

a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).

2. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is DENIED as to the following:

a. The State can impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store (claims one and three).

b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four)

3. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is GRANTED to the extent that:

a. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not preempted by IGRA (claim one).

b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four).

c. The collection and remittance of taxes on nonmember consumer purchases at the Store are not preempted by federal law and do not infringe on tribal sovereignty (claims two and five).

4. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is DENIED as to the following:

a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).

b. The State cannot condition renewal of the Tribe’s beverage license on the collection and remittance of a use tax on nonmember consumer purchases (claims six and eight).

5. The State does not have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop. However, the State does have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Store (claim seven).

6. Each party requested declaratory relief. Tribal sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature. This Court has no jurisdiction due to tribal sovereign immunity to order the ‘payment to the State from the escrow funds held pursuant to the Deposit Agreement. The Tribe, however, agreed in the Deposit Agreement that those funds would be held by the escrow agent pending the outcome of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the escrow agent may now, subject to any stay granted pursuant to an appeal, pay the funds held in escrow to the Tribe and to the State in their respective shares under the guidance provided by this declaratory judgment.

Federal Court Dismisses FTCA Claim Arising from Hot Oil Burn at Indian School

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

20 Motion to Dismiss

28 Response

32 Reply

34 DCT Order