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.):

201 Amended Final Judgment

205 State Motion to Amend

207 Tribe Motion to Stay Judgment

208 Opposition to 205

215 Second Amended Judgment

217 Opposition to 207

218 DCT Order Denying 207

221 Tribe Motion to Amend

227 State Response

230 Third Amended Judgment

Prior post here.

Penobscot/US v. Maine En Banc Stage Briefs

The petitions, filed two years ago, are here.

The court’s order requesting a response is here: ca1-order-2.pdf

Here is the state’s response and the petitioners’ reply briefs:

maine-response.pdf

penobscot-reply.pdf

us-reply.pdf

Case page here.

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

183 Community Assn Motion

185 Tribe Opposition

196 Tribe Surreply

197 Community Assn Reply

198 State Brief

200 DCT Order

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.

First Circuit Rejects Narragansett Tribe’s Claims against Rhode Island DOT

Here is the opinion in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Rhode Island Dept. of Transportation.

Briefs:

appellant-brief1.pdf

federal-appellee-brief.pdf

state-appellee-brief.pdf

reply4.pdf

Lower court materials here.

First Circuit Rejects Narragansett Interlocutory Appeal in Sovereign Immunity Matter (Waited Too Long to Appeal Denial of Motion for Reconsideration)

Here is the opinion in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe:

CA1 Opinion

An excerpt:

Surveying the foregoing, a prior duty panel of this court cleared the underbrush by  dismissing as untimely any appeal from the denial of the Motion to Dismiss. Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, No. 14-1106, Order at 1 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2014). That decision obviates the need to decide whether we would have had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the Motion to Dismiss. We do need to decide, though, whether we have appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the only order before us: the denial of the untimely Rule 59(e) Motion. For the reasons described below, we conclude that the denial of the Tribe’s untimely Rule 59(e) Motion does not qualify as a collateral order that we may review prior to the end of the litigation in the district court.

Briefs here.