Seminole Tribe Brief in Opposition to Contour Spa Cert Petition

Here:

Seminole Cert Opp

The petition is here.

11th Circuit Affirms Attorney Fees Award against EPA in Miccosukee v. United States

Here are the materials:

CA11 Unpublished Opinion

USA Appellant Brief

Friends of Everglades Answer Brief

USA Reply

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Polluted Water Transfer to Lake Okeechobee

Here is the opinion in Friends of the Everglades v. EPA.

 

 

Eleventh Circuit Affirms IRS Authority to Issue Subpoenas of Miccosukee Records

Here is the opinion in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States.

An excerpt:

This appeal presents three issues: (1) whether the Miccosukee Tribe may assert tribal sovereign immunity to quash summonses issued to third-party financial institutions by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to obtain tribal financial records relevant to an ongoing tax investigation; (2) whether the Commissioner issued the summonses for a proper purpose; and (3) whether the Tribe has standing to bring an overbreadth challenge to summonses issued to third parties and, if so, whether the summonses were overbroad. In 2010, the Commissioner issued four summonses to third-party financial institutions to determine whether the Tribe had complied with its federal withholding requirements during the period from 2006 to 2009. The Tribe petitioned to quash the summonses on the grounds of sovereign immunity, improper purpose, relevance, bad faith, and overbreadth. The district court denied those petitions. Because we conclude that tribal sovereign immunity does not bar the issuance of these third-party summonses, the district court did not clearly err when it found that the summonses were issued for a proper purpose, and the Tribe lacks standing to challenge the summonses for overbreadth, we affirm.

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Contour Spa v. Seminole Tribe Cert Petition

Here:

Contour Spa Cert Petition

Questions Presented:

1. Does Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613 (2003), provide a basis for finding a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity where an Indian Tribe has expressly waived sovereign immunity, is sued in state court, removes to federal court, and then asserts sovereign immunity based on the Tribe’s concealment of the fact that the Tribe did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s lease approval requests?
2. Does Justice Brandeis’ opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919). support the concept of tribal sovereign immunity or should that accidental doctrine, questioned in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998), be revisited and discarded.
3. Does the Indian Civil Rights Act, Title 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(5) and (a)(8) create an implicit cause of action permitting the Tribe to be sued for the taking of property without due process of law?
Lower court materials here.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity in Contour Spa v. Seminole Tribe

Here are the materials:

CA11 Opinion

Contour Spa Opening Brief

Seminole Appellee Brief

Contour Spa Reply Brief

Lower court materials here. Commentary on the lower court case here.

Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Miccosukee v. United States

Here:

Miccosukee Appellant Brief

USA Brief

Miccosukee Reply

Lower court materials here.

Miccosukee Appeals IRS Subpoenas Case

Here is the opening brief:

Miccosukee Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

Eleventh Circuit Holds Hollywood Mobile Estates Does Not Have Standing to Sue Seminole Tribe/Interior in Tribal Lands Repossession Case

Here is the opinion. And here are the briefs.

An excerpt:

This appeal presents issues of constitutional and prudential standing. The issue of constitutional standing is whether Hollywood Mobile Estates Limited alleged an injury fairly traceable to the Secretary of the Interior or redressable by the district court in a complaint that alleged that the Seminole Tribe of Florida had threatened to repossess tribal property in violation of a lease between Hollywood and the Tribe. After the Tribe repossessed the leased property, the district court denied, as futile, the motion of Hollywood for leave to amend the complaint to request injunctive relief against the Secretary under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. That decision raises an issue of prudential standing: whether the interests of Hollywood are within the zone of interests protected by the Indian Long–Term Leasing Act, 25 U.S.C. § 415, and its accompanying regulations. Because we conclude that Hollywood lacked constitutional standing to maintain its complaint, we vacate in part the judgment entered by the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because we also conclude that Hollywood lacked prudential standing to sue the Secretary, we affirm the denial of the motion for leave to amend the complaint as futile.

Eleventh Circuit Holds Hollywood Mobile Estates May Seek Injunctive Relief against Seminole Tribe…

…reversing the district court below. Here is the unpublished opinion (thanks to R.S.): 11th Circuit decision.

The trial court now has ordered a briefing schedule to determine whether Hollywood Mobile Estates is entitled to an order restoring its lease and ordering the Tribe to allow them to re-enter its lands. Here: Omnibus Order

Appellate briefs are here.