federal recognition – Page 13

N.C. COA Decides Case Involving Membership in State Commission on Indian Affairs

April 5, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Meherrin Tribe of N. Carolina v. N. Carolina State Commission on Indian Affairs (N.C. App.):

NC COA Opinion in Meherrin

NC Commission Appellate Brief

Meherrin Tribe Brief

NYTs: Wither Foxwoods?

March 14, 2012March 14, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the article (h/t Pechanga).

An excerpt:

In the early 1970s, just one resident remained on a Pequot reservation in Ledyard, now the site of Foxwoods — an elderly woman named Elizabeth George. Her grandson was Richard Hayward (known as Skip), a pipe welder and a former short-order cook with an audacious vision, innate political skills and a flair for dealmaking. Through his efforts, the tribe won federal recognition in 1983. In 1986, it opened a high-stakes bingo hall. Full-blown casino gambling came to Foxwoods in 1992 and in the two decades since has produced not millions but billions of dollars of revenue. Not surprisingly, the casino and its largess rejuvenated the tribe, whose population is now about 900. (Members trace their bloodlines to 11 Pequot families counted in a 1900 census.)

These days the tribe is dealing with the latest improbability in its turbulent history: financial havoc. The casino is underwater, like a five-bedroom Spanish colonial in a Nevada subdivision. The Pequots misjudged the market, borrowed too much and expanded unwisely. Foxwoods’s debt is on a scale befitting the size of the property — $2.3 billion.

Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation v. Salazar Complaint

February 7, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint:

Eastern Pequot Complaint

H.T.

Federal Court Grants Wasson/Bills Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Winnemucca Leadership Dispute

February 6, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is that order:

DCT Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

Prior posts are here and here and here.

Napa and Sonoma County Motion to Dismiss Mishewal Wappo Federal Recognition Suit Denied

October 26, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley v. Salazar (N.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Denying Intervenors Motion to Dismiss

Intervenor Counties Motion to Dismiss

Federal Defendants Reponse

Mishewal Wappo Opposition

Intervenor Counties Reply

Federal Court Denies Muwekma Ohlone Tribe’s Objections to DOI’s Decision Not to Acknowledge Tribe

September 29, 2011September 29, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar (D. D.C.):

DCT Order Granting USA Motion for Summary J

And the materials:

Muwekma Motion for Summary J

Interior Cross-Motion for Summary J

Federal Court Issues Injunction against Interior in Winnemucca Case

September 25, 2011September 23, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Winnemucca Indian Colony v. DOI (D. Nev.):

DOI Opposition to Motion for PI

Ayer Group Motion to Intervene

DCT Order on Motion for PI

TRO materials are here.

Federal Circuit Revives Part of Samish Indian Nation Damages Claims against US in Federal Recognition Case

September 20, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is today’s opinion in Samish Indian Nation v. United States.

An excerpt:

The issues on appeal before this court are ones of statutory construction. We must decide whether certain claims are premised on money-mandating statutes and are therefore within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), and the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1505. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the claims brought by the Samish Indian Nation (“Samish”) because some of their allegations were not premised upon any statute that was moneymandating, and the allegations reliant on moneymandating statutes were limited by other statutes. We affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ decision that it lacked jurisdiction over some of the Samish’s allegations because the Tribal Priority Allocation (“TPA”) system is not money-mandating. We conclude, however, that the trial court’s ability to provide a monetary remedy under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (“Revenue Sharing Act”) is not limited by operation of the AntiDeficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341. We therefore reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the Samish’s Revenue Sharing Act allegations and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Here are the briefs:

Samish Appellant Brief

Brief for the United States

Samish Reply

Lower court materials here.