Here is the opinion in Williams v. United States.
We’d have briefs but the Federal Circuit PACER doesn’t have them available.
Lower court materials here.
Federal Circuit
United States v. Samish Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), or Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1505, grants the Court of Federal Claims subject-matter jurisdiction over an Indian Tribe’s claim for money damages against the United States, based on the United States’ purported violation of sources of law that do not themselves mandate a damages remedy for their violation.
2. Whether the United States may be required to pay damages for failing to provide an Indian Tribe with a statutorily defined portion of a statutory fund, where Congress enacted limited appropriations for that fund and those appropriations were exhausted over a decade before the tribe filed its action for money damages.
Lower court materials are here.
Federal Circuit Decision Reopening Money Claims against US under “Bad Man” Clause of Treaty of Fort Laramie
Very interesting case to watch. Here are the materials:
US Appellee Brief in Richard v US
An excerpt:
The United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) held that a drunk driver who killed two Sioux men on a Sioux reservation was not a “bad man” within the meaning of the 1868 Laramie Treaty, and that in any event, the relevant provisions of the Treaty are no longer enforceable by its beneficiaries. Considering our textual analysis, and because we held in Tsosie v. United States, 825 F.2d 393, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1987), the “bad men” provisions (“‘bad men’ provisions”) of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 (“the Laramie Treaty”) are not limited to persons acting for or on behalf of the United States, and because the Claims Court’s textual analysis and its historical recitations are erroneous or incomplete, the Claims Court improperly dismissed Appellants’ Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Federal Government En Banc Petition in Samish Trust Case
Here.
Wyoming Public Radio Program on Wind River Tribes v. US: Audio and Transcript
Here.
Wyoming Public Radio on the Wind River Tribes’ Federal Circuit Victory
Here.
Federal Circuit Reinstates Wind River Shoshone Trust Claim re: Natural Resources Mismanagement
Here is today’s opinion. An excerpt:
The Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation and the Arapaho Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation (collectively “the Tribes”) appeal the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Claim II as time-barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (2006), which bars all suits filed against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims unless filed within six years after the claim accrues. Because we conclude that the Tribes have alleged a continuing trespass, the Court of Federal Claims improperly determined that Claim II is time-barred in its entirety. Accordingly, as explained below, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
We posted the briefs here.
Ed DuMont Asks Obama to Withdraw Federal Circuit Nomination
Sad. We remain fans.
Here.
Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Eastern Shawnee Tribe’s CFC Claims
Here is the unpublished, summary order in Eastern Shawnee Tribe v. United States. It was on remand from a GVR (grant, vacate, remand) from the Supreme Court (docs here). The Tribe had petitioned the Supreme Court before the United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation decision.
Federal Circuit Reinstates Vendor’s Claims against BIA over Educational Services
Here is the opinion in Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar.
Here is an excerpt:
Engage Learning, Inc. (“Engage”) appeals from a decision of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“the Board”) dismissing its appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Board held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (“CDA”), 41 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., because Engage failed to establish that it had a contract with the government for the unpaid services. Engage Learning, Inc. v. Dep’t of the Interior, CBCA 1165 (June 15, 2010) (“Board Op.”). Because we conclude that the Board erred in dismissing the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, but could have dismissed in part for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.