Tulalip Tribes En Banc Petition in Compact Dispute with State of Washington

Here is the petition in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:

2015-05-01 Dkt# Tulalip Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Panel opinion here. Briefs here.

Oklahoma v. Hobia Cert Petition

Here:

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (as filed)

Question presented:

Does Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (2014), require the dismissal of a State’s suit to prevent tribal officers from conducting gaming that would be unlawful under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and a state-tribal compact when

• the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief has been brought against tribal officials – not the tribe;
• the gaming will occur in Indian country, on the land of another tribe; and

• the state-tribal compact’s arbitration provision does not require arbitration before filing suit?

Lower court materials here.

Supreme Court Cert Opposition Briefs in Stockbridge-Munsee Land Claim

Here (thanks to the Supreme Court Project page):

State of New York Brief in Opposition

Oneida Indian Nation Brief in Opposition

The petition is here.

Law Professors Amicus Brief in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. New York

Here.

Previous coverage here.

Tenth Circuit Issues Amended Opinion in Oklahoma v. Hobia

Here. Like its earlier decision, today’s amended opinion concludes that the district court erroneously granted the State’s request for a preliminary injunction and held that the State’s complaint, which alleged class III gaming activities on non-Indian lands, failed to state a claim under IGRA.

The Tenth Circuit also reiterated that arbitration provisions in the state’s gaming compact effectively barred Oklahoma from suing tribal officials in federal court for purported violations of the compact. The court remanded the matter to the Northern District of Oklahoma with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and to dismiss Oklahoma’s complaint with prejudice.

Also, the court denied the petition for en banc review.

Panel materials are here.

Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. New York Cert Petition

Here:

11-7-14 Stockbridge-Munsee Cert Petition_(filed)

Questions presented:

In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), this Court held that courts may not override Congress’ judgment and apply laches to summarily dispose of claims at law filed within a statute of limitations established by Congress, thereby foreclosing the possibility of any form of relief. Equitable remedies may be foreclosed at the litigation’s outset due to a delay in commencing suit only in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as the need to prevent unjust hardship on innocent third parties. Id. at 1978.

The question presented is: Where Petitioner’s claims were filed within the statutory-limitations period established by Congress, did the court of appeals contravene this Court’s
decision in Petrella by invoking delay-based equitable principles to summarily dismiss all of Petitioner’s federal treaty, statutory and common-law claims, including one for money damages as upheld by this Court in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 470 U.S. 226, 246 (1985)?

Lower court materials here. En banc petition materials here.

Big Lagoon En Banc Oral Argument Materials

Here is “Small Native American Tribe and U.S. Duke It Out at the 9th Circuit.”

This seems like a misleading headline since the tribe and Feds were on the same side. In short, argument seemed to go well for tribal interests.

You can access the argument here.

Materials here.

En Banc Petition in Jackson v. Payday Financial LLC

Here:

En banc Petition

Clarkson Amicus Brief

Panel materials here.

Ninth Circuit to Video Stream En banc Arguments in Big Lagoon Rancheria Gaming Matter (Sept. 17, 2014)

Here is the news release. An excerpt:

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014, beginning at 10 a.m., the court will hear oral arguments in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California, in which the state appeals the summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in favor of Big Lagoon Rancheria, an Indian reservation near Eureka.  The lower court determined that the state violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to negotiate in good faith for a tribal-state gaming compact.

Here is the panel: Alex Kozinski, Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, Diarmuid O’Scannlain, Susan Graber, William Fletcher, Richard Paez, Jay S. Bybee, Milan Smith, Morgan Christen, and Jacqueline Nguyen

En banc materials here.

Panel materials here.

Cert Stage Briefs in Dollar General v. Mississippi Choctaw

Here:

Dollar General Cert Petition

Mississippi Choctaw Cert Opposition

Dollar General Reply

Mississippi Choctaw Supplemental Brief

En banc petition materials here.

CA5 Order Denying Dolgencorp En Banc Petition

Panel materials here.

Lower court decision and materials here.