Here.
Briefs here.
fee to trust
Cherokee Nation v. Bernhardt Cert Petition over United Keetoowah Band Trust Land Acquisition [updated with add’l cert stage materials]
Here is the petition:
Update:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Secretary of the Interior exceeded his statutory authority by taking land located within the reservation boundaries of one Indian Tribe and placing the land in trust for another Tribe, despite the objections of the first Tribe and in violation of a regulatory prohibition and the United States’ treaty promises to the first Tribe.
2. Whether the Court should hold this petition pending its disposition of Maine Community Health Options v. United States, No. 18-1023 (argued Dec. 10, 2019), because this case raises the same issue concerning implied repeals effected by appropriations laws and the proper standard for determining what law to apply.
Lower court materials here.
First Circuit Briefs in Littlefield v. Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe
Navajo Sues Interior over Fee-to-Trust Notice Rules
Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Ariz.):
Tenth Circuit Affirms Interior’s Decision to Acquire Trust Land for United Keetoowah Band
Here is the opinion in Cherokee Nation v. Bernhardt.
Briefs:
cherokee-nation-answer-brief.pdf
lower court materials here.
UPDATE:
Additional Amended Final Judgments in Aquinnah Wampanoag Gaming Case
Here are the additional materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):
207 Tribe Motion to Stay Judgment
Prior post here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Club One Casino v. Dept. of Interior [Challenge to IRA Section 5]
Federal Judge Issues Final Judgment for Town of Aquinnah on Remand from First Circuit
Here are the materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):
181 Town Motion for Final Judgment
Readers might recall that the circuit instructed the district court to “ent[er] judgment in favor of the Tribe” (link to panel materials here). Here is the district court’s answer to that order:
In summary, the Tribe could have appealed those portions of the judgment that provided that it must comply with state and local permitting and other regulatory requirements. Instead, it only appealed those portions addressing gaming issues. An amended final judgment in favor of the Tribe as to the gaming issues is of course required. The remainder of the judgment, however, will be reinstated in substance. If the Tribe seeks to construct and operate a gaming facility, it need not comply with state and local gaming laws, but it must comply with all state and local laws and regulations of general applicability to the construction and operation of a commercial building.
Sault Tribe Moves for Summary Judgment in Its Off-Rez Fee to Trust Claim
Here are the pleadings in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):
Case tag here.
Timbisha Shoshone Tribe Sue under Homeland Act
Here is the complaint in Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.