Here are the materials so far in Cherokee Nation v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Okla.):
55 Cherokee Motion to Strike Exhibits
58 US Response to Motion to Strike
Here are the materials so far in Cherokee Nation v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Okla.):
55 Cherokee Motion to Strike Exhibits
58 US Response to Motion to Strike
Here is the opinion in Wyandot Nation of Kansas v. United States.
An excerpt:
The Wyandot Nation of Kansas (“Wyandot Nation”) is a Native American tribe allegedly tracing its ancestry to the Historic Wyandot Nation. It claims to be a federally recognized Indian tribe and a successor-in-interest to all of the treaties between the Historic Wyandot Nation and the United States. On June 1, 2015, Wyandot Nation filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging that the United States had breached its trust and fiduciary obligations with respect to two trusts that resulted from prior treaties, including one related to amounts payable under a treaty signed in 1867 and one related to the Huron Cemetery. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and standing. Wyandot Nation appeals. We affirm.
Briefs here.
Here are the materials in Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley v. Zinke:
Briefs:
Other posts with lower court materials here.
Download petition for a Writ of Certiorari here.
Questions presented:
Whether a treaty promise to pay reparations to a group of Native Americans in the form and amount that is “best adapted to the respected wants and conditions of” said group of Native Americans, and subsequent appropriation of funds by Congress to pay such reparations, create a fiduciary relationship between the United States and said group of Native Americans.
Whether the Administrative Procedures Act waives the United States’ immunity from suit for accounting claims regarding trust mismanagement that begun before the enactment of the Act.
Whether a set of Appropriations Acts by Congress that defer the accrual of trust mismanagement claims against the United States operates as a waiver of the United States’ immunity from suit.
Previous posts in re Flute v. U.S. here.
An excerpt:
Appellants Ramona Two Shields and Mary Louise Defender Wilson brought this action against the United States, seeking redress for themselves and other Native Americans in connection with the government’s alleged mismanagement of oil-and-gas leases on Indian allotment land. The United States Court of Federal Claims found in favor of the government, granting summary judgment on Count I and dismissing Counts II and III. J.A. 1–30. We affirm.
Briefs and other materials here.
Here are the updated materials in Fletcher v. United States (N.D. Okla.):
1285 US Motion to Alter Judgment
1289 Fletcher Motion to Alter Judgment
Underlying order here.
Here are the materials in Fredericks v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Here are the materials in Fletcher v. United States (N.D. Okla.):
1262 Fletcher Brief on the Merits
Here is the opinion in Flute v. United States.
An excerpt:
This case arises out of an ignominious event in the history of this Nation. In 1864, the United States Army conducted an unprovoked attack on a group of unarmed Indians, who had relocated to an area next to the Sand Creek River in the Territory of Colorado at the direction and under the protection of the Territorial Governor. When what has become known as the Sand Creek Massacre was over, most of the Indians were dead, including many women and children. After an investigation, the United States publicly acknowledged its role in the tragedy and agreed to pay reparations to certain survivors of the massacre. But those reparations were never paid.
Plaintiffs are descendants of the victims of the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre and bring this action for an accounting of the amounts they allege the U.S. government holds in trust for payment of reparations to their ancestors. Because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of such for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Briefs here.
Here is the order in Goodeagle v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
You must be logged in to post a comment.