349 tribes signed on (either directly or through a tribal organization) and every plaintiff state in which tribes are located has at least one tribe as signatory. The briefing schedule will end on May 25, 2011. Oral argument has been scheduled for Wednesday June 8.
Here is the brief: NIHB Amicus Brief
Here are the materials in United States v. Watson:
Lower courts materials here.
Here: Appellee Brief.
The remainder of the briefs and lower court materials are here.
Here are the two opinions from the Eleventh Circuit in Miccosukee Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps and Miccosukee Tribe v. LaHood. Both hold that Congress stripped jurisdiction from the federal courts to hear the Miccosukee’s challenges to the alteration (replacing a mile of the road with a bridge to let more water in to the Everglades).
Baffling.
Here is the opinion in Miccosukee Tribe v. Kraus-Anderson Constr. Co.: 11th Circuit Opinion
And here is the Tribe’s complaint, which includes the 166-page tribal court opinion as an attachment: Miccosukee Complaint w Tribal Court Decision
Here is the court’s summary of the case:
In 2004, Kraus-Anderson Construction Company (“Kraus-Anderson”) sued the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (the “Tribe”) for breach of contract in the Miccosukee Tribal Court. The Tribe denied liability and counterclaimed, alleging that Kraus-Anderson was the breaching party. Following a trial on the merits, the Tribal Court denied Kraus-Anderson’s claims and, finding for the Tribe on its counterclaim, awarded the Tribe a judgment of $1.65 million. Kraus-Anderson petitioned the Tribe’s Business Council for leave to appeal the judgment to the Tribe’s General Council, which acts as the Tribal Court of Appeals. The Council denied Kraus-Anderson’s petition.
Kraus-Anderson refused to satisfy the Tribal Court’s judgment, so the Tribe brought suit against Kraus-Anderson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to enforce it. As an affirmative defense, Kraus-Anderson alleged that, in denying its petition for leave to appeal the Tribal Court’s judgment, the Business Council denied it due process of law, thereby rendering the judgment void. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court, relying on principles of comity, held the judgment unenforceable and granted Kraus-Anderson summary judgment. The Tribe now appeals. We reverse and remand the case to the district court with the instruction that it dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I’m willing to bet a dollar that the real reason for the 11th Circuit’s decision is based entirely on the fact that the tribal council sits as the tribal appellate court.
If anyone has the appellate briefs, please send. 🙂
Here are the briefs in Hollywood Mobile Estates v. Seminole Tribe of Florida:
Hollywood Mobile Opening Brief
[still looking for the Tribe’s brief]
Here are the lower court materials.
Here is the opinion in this installment of Miccosukee Tribe v. United States.
An excerpt:
The case is Freemanville Water System, Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians (opinion). Our post on the district court case is here. An excerpt:
After a hard look at the statute the only thing that is unmistakably clear to us is that the statutory language does not make it unmistakably clear that Congress intended to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity from lawsuits claiming a violation of the anti-curtailment provision [of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act]. See Kimel, 528 U.S. at 73, 120 S. Ct. at 640.
And here are the appellate briefs:
The Eleventh Circuit held that Dean Seneca, a former employee of the Office of Tribal Affairs in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the FTCA before suing the US and USET. He was reprimanded after allegedly making improper communications with USET over the text of proposed Congressional testimony.
Turtle Talk 