Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission v. San Juan County (D. Utah):
District of Utah
Navajo Nation Prevails in Voting Rights Case against San Juan County
Here is the order in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (D. Utah):
An excerpt:
The County’s redistricting decisions predominated by racial classifications violate the Equal Protection Clause because they are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and cannot survive strict scrutiny. On this basis, Navajo Nation is entitled to summary judgment on its first claim for relief. San Juan County’s motion for summary judgment is denied on the merits to the extent that it addresses the Equal Protection claim asserted in the first claim for relief, and denied as moot to the extent it addresses any other theory that could support Navajo Nation’s first claim. Because San Juan County Commission District Three violates the Equal Protection Clause, the districts in the County must be redrawn.
Briefs here.
Navajo Nation’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Voting Rights Matter
Here is the pleading in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (D. Utah):
San Juan County Ordered To Create New School Board Election Districts by January 28th, 2016
Link to press release from Navajo Nation DOJ here.
Previous posts about the case here.
Excerpt:
Leonard Gorman, Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission, attended the status conference and said, “We are very pleased with how the hearing went yesterday. It was great that Judge Shelby agreed that Navajo voters in San Juan County should not have to tolerate violations of their constitutional rights through another election cycle. We are especially grateful to Judge Shelby for establishing a firm deadline for fixing the County’s illegal School Board election districts.”
Federal Court Grants Federal Officer Summary Judgment in Excessive Force Suit brought by Deceased Alleged Indian Graverobber
Here are the materials in Estate of Redd v. Love (D. Utah):
An excerpt:
This case arises out of Dr. James D. Redd’s tragic suicide the day after federal agents arrested him and his wife for trafficking in stolen Native American artifacts, theft of government property, and theft of tribal property. Dr. Redd’s Estate brought this Bivens action against Bureau of Land Management Agent Daniel Love. The Estate claims Agent Love violated Dr. Redd’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force when Agent Love sent over fifty-three federal agents, many of whom were heavily armed and wearing bulletproof vests, to raid and search Dr. Redd’s home.
Agent Love moves for summary judgment, arguing qualified immunity shields him from the Estate’s claim. After careful consideration, the court grants Agent Love’s motion.
The estate previously survived a federal summary judgment motion, and those materials are here.
Navajo Prevails in Voting Rights Case
Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (D. Utah):
173 Navajo Motion for Summary J – 4th Claim
182 Navajo Motion for Summary J – 2d Claim
198 San Juan County Opposition
Tenth Circuit Sides with Ute Indian Tribe in Dispute with State and Counties over Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction
Here is the opinion in Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah:
An excerpt:
In our layered system of trial and appellate courts everyone’s assured at least two chances to air a grievance. Add to this the possibility that a lawsuit might bounce back to the trial court on remand or even rebound its way to appeal yet again — or the possibility that an issue might win interlocutory review — and the opportunities to press a complaint grow abundantly. No doubt our complex and consuming litigation wringer has assumed the shape it has so courts might squeeze as much truth as possible out of the parties’ competing narratives. But sooner or later every case must come to an end. After all, that’s why people bring their disputes to court in the first place: because the legal system promises to resolve their differences without resort to violence and supply “peace and repose” at the end of it all. S. Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 49 (1897). For a legal system to meet this promise, of course, both sides must accept — or, if need be, they must be made to respect — the judgments it generates. Most people know and readily assent to all this. So it’s pretty surprising when a State and several of its counties need a reminder. But that’s what this appeal is all about.
And:
A system of law that places any value on finality — as any system of law worth its salt must — cannot allow intransigent litigants to challenge settled decisions year after year, decade after decade, until they wear everyone else out. Even — or perhaps especially — when those intransigent litigants turn out to be public officials, for surely those charged with enforcing the law should know this much already. Though we are mindful of the importance of comity and cooperative federalism and keenly sensitive to our duty to provide appropriate respect for and deference to state proceedings, we are equally aware of our obligation to defend the law’s promise of finality. And the case for finality here is overwhelming. The defendants may fervently believe that Ute V drew the wrong boundaries, but that case was resolved nearly twenty years ago, the Supreme Court declined to disturb its judgment, and the time has long since come for the parties to accept it.
Briefs here.
Federal Court Denies San Juan County’s Motion to Dismiss Navajo Nation’s Voting Rights Case
Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (D. Utah):
98 San Juan County Motion to Dismiss
99 Navajo Nation Motion for Partial Summary J — Fourth Claim
100 Navajo Nation Motion for Partial Summary J — Second and Third Claims
101 Navajo Nation Opposition to 98
104 San Juan County 56d Motion
105 San Juan County Reply re 98
166 Memorandum Decision and Order
An excerpt:
Having established subject-matter jurisdiction and the joinder of all necessary parties, the court finds that Navajo Nation has provided “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). It has thus satisfied the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 12(c) further states that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed–but early enough not to delay trial–a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” The court finds no basis on which San Juan County would be entitled to judgment on the merits on the basis of this briefing.
Materials on Alleged Extortion by Ute TERO Office
Here are the relevant materials submitted in Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah (D. Utah):
271 Ute Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim
294 Duschene Cty Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
306 Ute Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
470 Duschene Cty Response to Motion for Summary J
481 DCT Order on Motion to Dismiss
The order:
At a hearing on January 10, 2013, with all parties present, this matter came before the Court on a Rule 12(b) motion filed by the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Dkt. 271, to dismiss the counterclaims filed by Duchesne County, Dkt. 239. The Court, having considered the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, rules that Count 1 of the counter-complaint is dismissed with leave to Duchesne County to file an amended pleading within 20 days; the racketeering claims under Count 2 are dismissed for being facially deficient and failing to state a cause of action; and the Court denies the motion to dismiss the remaining claims under Counts 2 through 5 of the counterclaim.
My sense is that Judge Jenkins is waiting for the Tenth Circuit to decide other matters to make a decision on the tribe’s motion for summary judgment on Duchesne County’s counterclaim. That appeal involves the tribe’s claim that the state and counties are illegally prosecuting tribal members under state law.
In the motion for summary judgment, the tribe is arguing that Article III courts have no jurisdiction, or in the alternative the county must first exhaust tribal remedies.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.