Ninth Circuit Rejects Two Challenges to North Fork Rancheria Gaming

Here is the opinion in Club One Casino, Inc. v. Bernhardt.

Briefs here.

And here is the opinion in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of the Interior.

Briefs here.

Taylorsville Rancheria Federal Recognition Suit Allowed to Proceed

Here are the materials in Tsi Akim Maidu of Taylorsville Rancheria v. Dept. of the Interior (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

12 US Motion to Dismiss

13 Response

17 Reply

33 DCT Order

34 First Amended Complaint

35 US Motion to Dismiss

36 Opposition

39 Reply

41 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation v. Newsom

Here:

Opening Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Upper Lake Pomo Citizens’ Play for Trust Land

Here is the unpublished opinion in Jackson v. United States.

Briefs:

opening-brief.pdf

us-brief.pdf

intervenors-brief.pdf

reply-brief.pdf

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria

Here is the order list.

Cert stage materials here.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Materials in Tribal Property Line Dispute

Here are the materials in Grindstone Indian Rancheria v. Olliff (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

15 Amended Answer + Counterclaim

16 Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim

18 Response

19 Reply

21 DCT Order Dismissing Counterclaim

29 Tribe Motion for Summary Disposition

32 Response

35 Reply

37 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Big Sandy Rancheria’s Challenge to State Tax Laws

Here are the materials in Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Becerra (E.D. Cal.):

1-complaint-6.pdf

10-1-state-treasury-mtd.pdf

11-1-state-ag-mtd.pdf

13-first-amended-complaint-2.pdf

15-1-state-ag-mtd.pdf

16-1-state-treasury-mtd.pdf

20-tribe-response-to-16.pdf

21-tribe-response-to-15.pdf

23-state-tax-dept-reply.pdf

24-state-ag-reply.pdf

44-dct-order.pdf

Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria Cert Petition

Here:

cert-petition.pdf

Questions presented:

“[T]he inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe.” Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). The Montana Court recognized two limited narrow exceptions to that rule. But the Court has never resolved the question of whether tribal courts may ever exercise civil tort jurisdiction over nonmembers. In Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008) and in Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC v. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, et. al. 136 S.Ct. 2159 (2016) the issue was brought before this Court, but unanswered. This case presents the issue of: Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers?

Further this case presents the issue of: If the Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims over nonmembers, what is the prerequisite notice of any such authority, what is the prerequisite consent thereto by a nonmember, and what is the viable scope of such jurisdiction so as to satisfy the Due Process rights of a nonmember?

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

Brief in Opposition–PDFA

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of Interior [No. 18-16830]

Here:

Opening Brief

North Fork Brief

Federal Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.