Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Shinnecock Members’ Off-Reservation Fishing Rights Suit [again]

Here are the updated materials in Silva v. Farrish (E.D. N.Y.):

83-6 Suffolk County Motion for Summary Judgment

83-10 Opposition

83-12 Reply

84-8 New York Motion for Summary Judgment

84-13 Opposition

84-14 Reply

89 Magistrate Report

Prior post here.

Case Materials in Seneca Nation v. Andrew Cuomo, et. al. (W.D.N.Y) [New York Thruway Easement]

Here:

Doc. 1_Complaint (04.11.18)

Doc. 16 and 16-1_Defs’ Motion to Dismiss (06.05.18)

Doc. 22_Pltf’s Response in Opp to Defs MTD (08.10.18)

23 Reply

29 Magistrate Report

Update:

32 Objections

36 Response

37 Reply

Federal Court Allows Bishop Paiute Suit against Inyo County re: Tribal Law Enforcement Authority to Proceed

Here are the materials in Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County (E.D. Cal.):

45-1 inyo county mtd

46-1 sheriff mtd

49 opposition

47-1 inyo da mtd

61 dct order

Tenth Circuit Strikes Down Part 291 Secretarial Procedures

Here is the opinion in State of New Mexico v. Dept. of Interior.

Briefs here.

Seminole Tribe Prevails in Dispute with Florida over Banked Games

Here are the materials in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida (N.D. Fla.):

37-seminole-msj

38-florida-msj

44-seminole-response-to-38

53-florida-response-to-37

86-seminole-immunity-brief

87-florida-immunity-brief

103-dct-order

California v. Pauma Band Cert Petition

Here is the petition in California v. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation:

Cal v Pauma Cert Petn

Question presented:

In Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), this Court held that a waiver of state sovereign immunity must be “stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implication from the text as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’” Id. at 673 (alteration omitted). This case concerns a gaming compact between the State of California and the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation. Both parties waived their sovereign immunity from suits arising under the compact, but only to the extent that “[n]either side makes any claim for monetary damages (that is, only injunctive, specific performance, including enforcement of a provision of this Compact requiring payment of money to one or another of the parties, or declaratory relief is sought) . . . .” App. 28a. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit held that this limited waiver, which also appears in gaming compacts between California and 57 other tribes, waived the State’s immunity with respect to an award of $36.2 million in restitution.

The question presented is: Whether, under Edelman, the language of the limited waiver—which expressly excludes claims for “monetary damages” and references only injunctive relief, specific performance, and declaratory relief— waived the State’s sovereign immunity with respect to the district court’s monetary award.

Lower court materials here (panel, en banc).

Tenth Circuit Briefs in New Mexico v. Dept. of Interior (Challenge to Part 291 Regs re: Pojoaque Pueblo)

Here are the briefs:

Interior Opening Brief

Pojoaque Opening Brief

New Mexico Brief

Interior Reply Brief

Pojoaque Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Invalidates Part 291 Secretarial Procedures in Pojoaque Pueblo Case

Here are the materials in State of New Mexico v. Dept. of Interior (D. N.M.):

37 Interior Motion for Summary J

39 New Mexico Motion for Summary J

40 Pojoaque Opposition

41 New Mexico Opposition

42 Interior Opposition

43 Pojoaque Reply

44 Interior Reply

46 New Mexico Reply

48 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiff State of New Mexico challenges the Department of the Interior and the Secretary of the Interior’s legal authority to implement regulations found in 25 C.F.R. § 291 (“Secretarial Procedures” or “Part 291 regulations”). The Secretarial Procedures, if adopted, would allow the Pueblo of Pojoaque to conduct Class III gaming on its reservation. New Mexico asks this Court to declare the Secretarial Procedures invalid because they conflict with the unambiguous terms of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. and violate New Mexico’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.