Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion. An excerpt:
We recognize that in interpreting federal statutes in Indian affairs we “provide for a broad construction when the issue is whether Indian rights are reserved or established, and for a narrow construction when Indian rights are to be abrogated or limited.” Felter, 752 F.2d at 1512; see also F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 224–25 (1982). In Felter, we determined the hunting and fishing rights of the individuals were not abrogated because the statute did not clearly abrogate them—this is a narrowing construction. But we cannot also conclude that the Termination Act implicitly gave the Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe authority to exercise Ute tribal rights with respect to hunting and fishing, when the Act plainly established those rights within the Ute Tribe.
Here is the order in Chegup
Here are the materials so far in Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):
Here are the materials in Cedar Band of Paiutes v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Utah):
News article explaining the injunction here.
We posted the complaint and the motion here.
Here are the materials so far in Ute Indian Tribe v. McKee (D. Utah):