SCOTUS Denies Cert in Yakama v. Yakima County Criminal Jurisdiction Dispute

Here is today’s order list.

Cert stage briefs and links to lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses ICRA Habeas Petition Challenging Enhanced Sentence under TLOA

Here are the materials in Picard v. Colville Tribal Correction Facility (E.D. Wash.):

1 Habeas Petition

15 Answer

15-5 Colville Appellate Court Opinion

21 DCT Order

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion in Suit Arising Out of Death of Yakama Citizen

Here are the materials in United Financial Casualty Company v. Spencer Trucking LLC (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

3 Amended Complaint

5 Motion to Dismiss

7 Response

12 Reply

14 Motion for Summary Judgment

17 Second Motion to Dismiss

22 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Remaining Claims of Wapato Heritage in Colville Leasing Matter

Here are the materials in Grondal v. United States (E.D. Wash.):

275 Colville Motion to Dismiss

570 US Motion to Dismiss

571 Colville Supplemental Brief re 275

572 Wapato Motion for Partial Summary J

577 Wapato Response to 275

588 Colville Reply in Support of 275

589 Wapato Response to 570

592 US Response to 572

605 US Reply in Support of 570

644 DCT Order

646 US Motion to Dismiss

649 Response

651 Reply

652 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Yakama Nation Cert Petition in Dispute with Yakima County over Criminal Jurisdiction

Here is the petition in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County:

Yakama Nation Cert Petition

Question presented:

The United States reassumed Pub. L. 83-280 criminal jurisdiction over crimes involving Indians within the Yakama Reservation from the State of Washington pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1323, on April 19, 2016. Years later, federal officials re-interpreted the scope of that federal reassumption to allow the State of Washington to once again exercise criminal jurisdiction over Indians within the Yakama Reservation any time a non-Indian is involved in the crime.The question presented is:

Can the United States change the scope of its reassumption of Pub. L. 83-280 jurisdiction in Indian Country years after the reassumption became effective under 25 U.S.C. § 1323 without the Yakama Nation’s prior consent required by 25 U.S.C. § 1326?

Lower court materials here.

Update (3/4/21):

Brief in Opposition

Update (3/16/21):

Yakama Reply

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

Here:

Kalispel Opening Brief

Spokane Tribe Answer Brief

Interior Answer Brief

Reply

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.