Here: Hoopa En Banc Petition
Earlier materials are here.
Hoopa Valley Tribe Petition for En Banc Review in Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act Case
Here: Hoopa En Banc Petition
Earlier materials are here.
Federal Circuit
More News Coverage of Ed DuMont’s Nomination to the Federal Circuit
I like him more every day.
From How Appealing:
“Breaking Barriers: Edward DuMont, praised by colleagues as ‘brilliant,’ would be the first openly gay federal appellate judge in the country.” Chris Geidner has this article online at the web site of Metro Weekly, Washington, DC’s gay & lesbian news magazine.
Nominee to Federal Circuit (Ed DuMont) Has Significant Indian Law Experience
Ed DuMont‘s nomination to the Federal Circuit (more news articles from How Appealing) is very interesting, given that as former attorney for the Office of the Solicitor General, he argued two Indian law cases (one opposed and one in favor, winning both). The two cases are Kiowa Tribe (1998, as amicus favoring the tribe) and Chickasaw Nation (2001).
Mr. DuMont also worked on the following cases: MichGO v. Kempthorne (D.C. Cir. 2008, on behalf of the Gun Lake Band); San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino (D.C. Cir. 2007, on the NCAI amicus brief); and City of Roseville v. Norton (D.C. Cir. 2003, on behalf of the United Auburn Band).
This might actually be good news for Indian Country. As always, hard to predict, but the more the judges know, the better.
Opening Materials in Navajo Fifth Amendment Takings Claim in Land Dispute
United States Petition for Rehearing in In re United States
Here: In re United States Petition for Rehearing
Recall that the question involved is whether the United States can avoid producing certain documents in the Jicarilla Apache v. United States case (materials here).
Plenty v. DOI — Federal Circuit Affirms Discharge of Indian Trust Employee in Conflict of Interest
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
In 1989, Ms. Plenty began working at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“Agency”), a division of the Department of the Interior. She worked in the Land Title and Records Office (“Office”), which secures, processes, and maintains records on interests in real property held in trust by the United States for individual Native Americans and tribes. Ms. Plenty was removed from her position as a legal instruments examiner on April 7, 2008.
The evidence indicates that, on December 13, 2007, Ms. Plenty, herself a Native American, requested that Mamie Charette, an Office cartography technician, print out Ms. Plenty’s mother’s land holding reports and associated maps. Ms. Charette provided Ms. Plenty with five bound booklets pertaining to her mother’s trust property, including an Individual/Tribal Report (“ITI”) and Title Status Reports (“TSRs”). Ms. Charette testified that her work in response to Ms. Plenty’s request was performed on two separate days. She estimated that it took her approximately six hours to complete the work.
Ms. Plenty admitted that she was aware of the Office’s policy on conflicts of interest, which prohibited its employees from performing work on relatives’ estates. In addition, as a “probable heir,” Ms. Plenty was required to make a request to the Agency office having administrative jurisdiction over the Indian land and was not entitled to receive the TSRs that she obtained from Ms. Charette. A TSR contains information on all fractional owners and their interests, and its dissemination is more restricted than an ITI.
Hoopa Valley Tribe Loses Claim to Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Funds
Here is the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States.
Briefs:
Lower court materials are here.
Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. U.S. — Attorney-Client Privilege Dispute Headed for Supreme Court?
Jicarilla Apache Tribe sued the U.S. in 2002 in the Court of Federal Claims and later asked for inter-agency federal documents where the government claimed an attorney-client privilege. The court disagreed and ordered the production of certain documents. This order here denies the government’s motion for a stay while it petitions to the Federal Circuit for a mandamus order. Now apparently it wants more time to file a cert petition in the Supreme Court.
And here is the Federal Circuit’s order.
United States Files Cert Petition in Supreme Court re: Procedure in Indian Trust Cases
Here is the petition: United States v Tohono O’odham Nation Cert Petition.
Suffice it to say that the chances of this petition being granted are pretty good — about two-thirds (or more) of all of the United States’ cert petitions are granted.
Here are the questions presented:
Under 28 U.S.C. 1500, the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) does not have jurisdiction over “any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff *** has *** any suit or process against the United States” or its agents “pending in any other court.” The question presented is:
Whether 28 U.S.C. 1500 deprives the CFC of jurisdiction over a claim seeking monetary relief for the government’s alleged violation of fiduciary obligations if the plaintiff has another suit pending in federal district court based on substantially the same operative facts, especially when the plaintiff seeks monetary relief or other overlapping relief in the two suits.
Here are the lower court materials. And a decision in a similar case.
Federal Circuit Adopts Fiduciary Exception to Atty-Client Privilege in Tribal Trust Cases
One would expect a cert petition from the United States in the new year on this one.
An excerpt:
The United States petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the Court of Federal Claims (“trial court”) to vacate its orders requiring the United States to produce documents that it asserts are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Jicarilla Apache Nation (“Jicarilla”) opposes. We hold that the United States cannot deny an Indian tribe’s request to discover communications between the United States and its attorneys based on the attorney-client privilege when those communications concern management of an Indian trust and the United States has not claimed that the government or its attorneys considered a specific competing interest in those communications. Accordingly, we adopt the fiduciary exception in tribal trust cases. Under the fiduciary exception, a fiduciary may not block a beneficiary from discovering information protected under the attorney-client privilege when the information relates to fiduciary matters, including trust management. Because we find that the trial court correctly applied the fiduciary exception to the United States’ privileged communications, we deny the United States’ petition for a writ of mandamus.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.