Fourth Circuit Favors Tribal Immunity in Williams v. Big Picture Loans LLC

Here is the opinion.

Briefs here.

Fourth Circuit Briefs in Williams v. Big Picture Loans

Here:

appellant brief

williams appellee brief

center for responsible lending amicus brief

conference of tribal lending commissioners amicus brief

States Brief

ncai amicus brief

Redacted Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Materials in Williams v. Big Picture Loans LLC [Lac Vieux Desert Ojibwe Enterprise]

Here are the materials in Williams v. Big Picture Loans LLC (E.D. Va.):

23 big picture mtd jurisdiction

27 big picture mtd exhaustion

29 tribal officials mtd

83 opposition to 23

86 opposition to 27

87 opposition to 29

99 reply in support of 23

100 reply in support of 27

101 reply in support of 29

146 dct order

Update (4/17/19) — Here are materials in a related matter, Weddle v. Williams (D. Colo.):

1 Motion to Quash Subpoena

11 Motion to Transfer Motion

12 Response to Motion to Quash

17 Reply in Support of Motion to Quash

18 Response to Motion to Transfer

19 Third Party Motion to Intervene

20 Notice of Third Party Joinder

22 Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer

24 Response to Motion to Intervene

26 Third Party Reply

27 DCT Order Granting Motion to Transfer

Update (5/6/19) — Here are updated materials in Big Picture:

341-motion-to-compel.pdf

368-opposition.pdf

395-reply.pdf

478-dct-order.pdf

Virginia Federal Court Confirms Immunity of Tribal Sovereign Lending Entity

Here are the materials in Howard v. Plain Green (E.D. Va.):

14 Motion to Dismiss

18 Response

19 Reply

21 Magistrate Report

22 DCT Order

DOJ Wins Motion to Dismiss in NCFA v. Jewell (2015 Guidelines Litigation)

This is a big win–the Judge dismissed all claims, including the equal protection and substantive due process ones. In addition, there’s good language for the eventual ICWA regulations.

Here is the order.

This Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and for Judgement on the Pleadings because: (1) Plaintiffs’ claims are precluded by this Court’s October 20, 2015 Memorandum Opinion in which the Court held that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Guidelines, that the Guidelines are not justiciable as a “final agency action,” and that the Guidelines are non-binding interpretive rules; (2) BAF has not demonstrated any authority to support its equal protection, due process, or Indian Commerce Clause claims; (3) the 2015 Guidelines do not commandeer state entities; and (4) BAF has failed to plead a Bivens action.

(emphasis added)

And:

…even if the 2015 Guidelines were legislative rules, rather than interpretive guidelines that do not mandate state court compliance, the 2015 Guidelines still would not commandeer state entities to comply with its regulations… Just as Congress may pass laws enforceable in state courts, Congress may direct state judges to enforce those laws.

As a personal side note, there so many great people who have worked on this litigation since it was filed in May, and they all deserve thanks.

Briefing Completed in Nat’l Council for Adoption v. Jewell (Guidelines Litigation) on Motion to Dismiss

Hearing on the matter is set for 11/13. Government’s Reply Brief here.

Even if BAF’s claims were not precluded by the Memorandum Opinion, however, they would fail in their own right. BAF does not have standing, either for itself or to assert the interests of unspecified birth parents, nor has it alleged any basis for this Court to conclude that its claims are ripe. If adoption proceedings are underway, then the Court should abstain from hearing the present suit or dismiss the declaratory relief as contrary to the Anti-Injunction Act. BAF cannot demonstrate that “legal consequences flow” from the Guidelines so as to render them reviewable because it concedes that Defendants do not enforce the Guidelines, and makes no argument that Defendants otherwise treat them as controlling. Nor does BAF cite any binding authority for the propositions that the Guidelines are race-based, that birth parents have a fundamental right to dictate the adoptive placement of their child, that ICWA exceeds the Indian Commerce Clause, or that non-binding Guidelines may commandeer state entities. For these reasons, and because they have not alleged a basis for relief under Bivens, Plaintiffs’ claims fail for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and as a matter of law and must be dismissed.

Previous filings here. (documents 52, 56, 64, 67)

DOJ Prevails in Partial Motion for Summary Judgment in NCFA v. Jewell (Guidelines Litigation)

Order was issued on September 29th, but the Memorandum Opinion was issued today.

This Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ for Partial Summary Judgment because (1) Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the 2015 Guidelines, (2) the 2015 Guidelines are not “final agency action” within the meaning of the APA because they do not create legal rights and obligations, and (3) the 2015 Guidelines are non-binding interpretive rules not subject to APA notice-and-comment procedures.

Previous filings are here.

Government’s Motion to Transfer Venue in Nat’l Council for Adoption v. Jewell (ICWA Guidelines Litigation) Denied

The Feds wanted to move the case to Arizona (the location of Goldwater v. Washburn, the class action case).

Order here.

Pleadings:

MotiontoTransfer_MemoinSupport

MotioninOppositiontoXfer

ReplyinSupportMotiontoXfer

Here is the Government’s answer to the initial complaint43 – Answer

The plaintiffs also filed a motion for summary judgment before time had run for the Government to respond to the initial complaint:

PartialSummaryJudgment_MotioninSupport

Documents filed in this case are also all being kept here (under the “Kathryn E. Fort” tab at the top of Turtle Talk’s main page).

Fourth Circuit Briefs in Arbitration Case Arising from the Wreckage of Western Sky

Here are the briefs in Hayes v. Delbert Services Corp.:

Hayes Brief

Delbert Services Brief

Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.