Burt Lake Band Attempting to Re-open Federal Recognition Suit

Here are the new materials in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

63-1 Burt Lake Motion

Docket No. 64: MINUTE ORDER. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that “a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“As a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction.”). Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and “courts may raise the issue sua sponte.” NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 120 (D.C. Cir. 2008), quoting Athens Cmty. Hosp., Inc. v. Schweiker, 686 F.2d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Indeed, a federal court must raise the issue because it is “forbidden… from acting beyond [its] authority, and ‘no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.'” Id., quoting Akinseye v. Dist. of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In connection with the 63 Motion to Rule Upon Constitutional Claims and For Permanent Injunction, then, plaintiff must show cause by January 6, 2023 why the question of the validity of the proposed rule would be ripe at this time, and why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider the constitutional issues when there is no live controversy before it. The 2015 rule has been vacated but its replacement has not yet been promulgated, so plaintiff must explain why it is not simply seeking an advisory opinion. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/23/2022. (lcabj2) (Entered: 12/23/2022)

65 Burt Lake Response

66 Interior Response

Prior post here.

Washington Federal Court Keeps Muckleshoot Out as Party in Duwamish Recognition Suit

Here are the materials in Duwamish Tribe v. Haaland (W.D. Wash.):

14 Muckleshoot Motion to Intervene

18 Duwamish Opposition

20 Interior Opposition

21 Reply

26 DCT Order

Complaint here.

D.C. Federal Court Rules in Favor of Small Business Admin. in Dispute with Corp. Claiming to be Owned by Recognized Tribe

Here are the materials in GTEC Industries Inc. v. Guzman (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

33-1 SBA Motion

34-1 GTEC Motion

37 SBA Response

38 GTEC Response

39 GTEC Reply

40 SBA Reply

49 GTEC Surreply

50 DCT Order

California Federal Court Allows Taylorsville Rancheria Recognition Suit to Proceed (again)

Here are the new materials in Tsi Akim Maidu of Taylorsville Rancheria v. Dept. of the Interior (E.D. Cal.):

Maryland Federal Court Partially Dismisses, Abstains from Resolving Case Involving Accohannock Indian Tribe

Here are the materials in Accohannock Indian Tribe v. Tyler (D. Md.):

Chinook Recognition Suit Remanded to Agency

Here are the materials in Chinook Indian Nation v. Bernhardt (W.D. Wash.), formerly Chinook Indian Nation v. Zinke:

113 DCT Order on Motions for Summary Judgmet

114 Motion for Reconsideration

116 Response

117 Reply

118 DCT Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration

128 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

129 Response

132 Reply

133 DCT Order

Prior post here.