Federal Circuit Decides Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona Inc. v. United States [trust breach re: Phoenix Indian School]

Here is the opinion.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Cert Petition by Western Ranchers and Farmers Challenging Reserved Water Rights [updated]

Here is the petition in Bales v. United States:

baley-cert-petition.pdf

Question presented:

Whether, against the legal backdrop of Congress’s and this Court’s recognition of the primacy of state law to determine, quantify, and administer water rights, a federal court may deem federal agency regulatory action under the Endangered Species Act to constitute the adjudication and administration of water rights for tribal purposes.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

05142020-1 PacificCoastFedFishermen Opposition Brief

OpposBriefUSA-20200514173954985_19-1134 Baley

Update in Remanded “Bad Men” Case regarding Shooting of Indian Man

Here are the materials in Jones v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

137 Motion for Sanctions

139 Response

142 Reply

145 DCT Order

Prior posts here.

Federal Circuit Decides Baley v. United States [Indian reserved water rights to Klamath River water predate farmers]

Here is the opinion.

Here are the briefs:

baley-opening-brief.pdf

us-brief.pdf

baley-reply-brief.pdf

hoopa-amicus-brief.pdf

klamath-tribe-amicus-brief.pdf

yurok-tribe-amicus-brief.pdf

indian-law-professors-brief.pdf

nrdc-brief.pdf

oregon-amicus-brief.pdf

pacific-coast-federation-of-fishermen-brief.pdf

Federal Circuit Revives Portions of Lummi/Hopi/Fort Berthold Housing Authorities NAHASDA Claims

Here is the opinion in Lummi Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cir.). An excerpt:

[W]e conclude that because neither the Claims Court nor this court previously adjudicated Lummi’s breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust claims, the Claims Court erred by dismissing Lummi’s entire case.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

Reply

Prior posts here.

No State Sovereign Immunity in Patent Case [Relying on Saint Regis Mohawk Decision]

From the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals:

Opinion

And, contrary to UMN’s arguments, Saint Regis did not
base its reasoning on implied abrogation of tribal sovereign
immunity. Instead, Saint Regis concluded that IPR was an
agency reconsideration proceeding to which sovereign immunity does not apply in the first instance. 896 F.3d at 1329. This reasoning applies equally to states as it does to
tribes.

Article discussing the opinion here.