Here is the opening brief in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):
53 DCT Order on Briefing Schedule
56 Pro-Football Motion for Summary J on Constitutional Claims
According to the briefing schedules, briefs are going to be flying fast and furious. We’ll try to keep up.
Prior materials on the federal government intervention here, and the now-denied motion to dismiss here.
Here is the opinion in Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber. An excerpt:
In this appeal, we consider the South Dakota Department of Corrections’ (“SDDOC”) decision to prohibit tobacco use by Native American inmates during religious activities. In 2009, the Native American Council of Tribes (“NACT”) and South Dakota Native American inmates Blaine Brings Plenty and Clayton Creek (collectively “inmates”) brought suit against 1 prison officials from the SDDOC (collectively “defendants”)2 claiming that the tobacco ban substantially burdened the exercise of their religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). After a three-day bench trial, the district court granted 3 injunctive relief to the inmates and directed the parties confer regarding a revised tobacco policy. On failure to agree, the district court entered a remedial order that, among other things, limited the proportion of tobacco in the mixture distributed to inmates for religious purposes to no more than one percent. The defendants appeal the grant of injunctive relief, including the remedial order. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Briefs here:
Lower court materials are here and here.
Other posts are here, here, and here.
Here are the new materials in Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber (D. S.D.):
Not much going on, so how about a few random briefs?
Here’s a brief from the State of Arizona in the Arizona COA defending a decision to deny state unemployment benefits to a former Navajo Nation elected official who is unemployed after losing an election (Robbins v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Security):
And here’s a SCT cert petition from a North Carolina company alleging that the state’s ban on a form of gaming advertisements are violative of the First Amendment (Sandhill Amusements Inc. v. North Carolina):
The case, once again, is Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber (D. S.D.):
The court previously issued an order explaining how the ban violates federal religious freedom rights here.
Since the prison system could not agree with the prisoners on a way to craft an injunction, Judge Schreier simply issued an order stating, “[D]efendants are enjoined from banning tobacco used during Native American religious ceremonies.”
Here are the materials in Russell v. Krowne (D. Md.):
DCT Order Vacating Default Judgment
Penoscot Indian Nation Motion for Default Judgment
Penobscot Response to Motion to Vacate
Strange case; seems to involve a program created by Penobscot called Grant America Program, which is home buyer down payment program, and the defendants’ website, which published internet posts calling the program a “scam.” The Nation and its allies claim defamation, and the defendants call the suit a SLAPP suit.
Here are the materials in Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber (D. S.D.):
Earlier materials on this case were here.
Here is that brief:
The parties’ initial post-trial briefs are here:
Brings Plenty Post-Trial Brief
Our prior post is here.
News coverage (h/t A.E.).
Here is the opinion in Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber (D. S.D.):
Summary judgment is denied on plaintiffs’ RLUIPA claim because genuine issues of material fact exist on whether defendants’ October 2009 policy substantially burdens plaintiffs’ religious exercise. Summary judgment is also denied on plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims because defendants offer no argument as to why summary judgment is appropriate on those claims. Summary judgment is granted on the AIRFA claim because AIRFA does not create an independent cause of action. Summary judgment is also granted on plaintiffs’ international law claims because the customary law claim is vague, the genocide claim lacks a factual basis, and the United Nations Charter claim does not create an individual cause of action.
Here is the opinion in what appears to be the first IACA case in the First Circuit, out of the District of Rhode Island: DCT Order Denying Specialties’ Motion to Dismiss
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.