Ninth Circuit Briefs in Kalispel Tribe of Indians v. Dept. of the Interior

Here:

Kalispel Opening Brief

Spokane Tribe Answer Brief

Interior Answer Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Orders Eviction of Campers from Colville Allotment [. . . It’s a long story]

Here are the materials in Grondal v. Mill Bay Members Assn. (E.D. Wash.):

1-grondal-complaint.pdf

232-us-motion-for-ejectment.pdf

295-opposition-to-232.pdf

306-reply.pdf

329 DCT Order re Appointment of Counsel

411 DCT Order re Representation of Indian Allottees

438-plaintiffs-response-to-232.pdf

439-plaintiffs-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf

441-colville-response-232.pdf

465-us-response-to-439.pdf

469-colville-response-to-439.pdf

483-reply-in-support-of-439.pdf

503-dct-order.pdf

Related post here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Yakama Nation Reservation Boundaries Case

Here are the briefs in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Klickitat County :

Yakama Opening Brief

County Opening Brief

US Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

This case presents the question whether the State of Washington may exercise criminal jurisdiction over members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation who commit crimes on reservation land. To answer that question, we must interpret a 2014 Washington State Proclamation that retroceded—that is, gave back—“in part,” civil and criminal jurisdiction over the Yakama Nation to the United States, but retained criminal jurisdiction over matters “involving non-Indian defendants and non-Indian victims.” If “and,” as used in that sentence, is conjunctive, then the State retained jurisdiction only over criminal cases in which no party—suspects or victims—is an Indian. If, by contrast, “and” is disjunctive and should be read as “or,” then the State retained jurisdiction if any party is a non-Indian. We conclude, based on the entire context of the Proclamation, that “and” is disjunctive and must be read as “or.” We therefore affirm the district court.

Briefs here. Oral argument video here.

Federal Court Orders Tribal Exhaustion in Contract Dispute with Colville

Here are the materials in Clements v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

9 Motion to Dismiss

9-8 Colville Tribal Court Opinion

9-9 Colville COA Opinion

11 Response

12 Reply

17 DCT Order

Federal Court Affirms Yakama Reservation Boundaries

Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Klickitat County (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

16 Motion to Dismiss

23 Response

24 Reply

25 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

36 Tribe Motion for PI

43 County Response

51 Reply

58 DCT Order Denying Motion for PI

76 US Amicus Brief

77 County Trial Brief

78 Yakama Trial Brief

86-1 Corrected US Amicus Brief

100 Washington Amicus Brief

112 DCT Order

Yakama PR

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Yakama v. County Criminal Jurisdiction Appeal

Here are the briefs in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. City of Toppenish:

Opening Brief

Appellee Brief

state-amicus-brief.pdf

us-amicus-brief.pdf

reply-1.pdf

Lower court materials here.

Interior & Spokane Tribe Prevail over Spokane County & Kalispel Tribe re: Spokane Casino

Here are the materials in Kalispel Tribe of Indians v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Wash.):

79 Kalispe MSJ

82 Spokane County MSJ

96 Spokane Tribe Cross MSJ

98 DOI Cross MSJ

113 Kalispel Reply

114 Spokane County Reply

115 Spokane Tribe Reply

116 DOI Reply

118 DCT Order

We posted the complaint here.