Here are the new materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Ct.):
Second Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Second Emer Motion for TRO
Reply in Support of Second Emergency Motion for TRO
Tribal Court Order Denying Second TRO Motion re Election
Tribal Court Order Denying Second TRO Re General Special Meetings
News coverage here. Previous post on the recent tribal court litigation. And an update on tribal court filings:
Second Declaration of Gabriel S. Galanda
And a federal complaint alleging FOIA violations by the Bureau of Indian Affairs — St. Germain v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Wash.):
St Germain v Interior Complaint
Sauk County has filed a FOIA action in the Western District of Wisconsin federal district court against the Department of the Interior seeking documents associated with a Ho-Chunk Nation fee-to-trust application.
Copy of the complaint here
Here.
Here is the complaint.
Interesting case, in which the court rejected DOJ’s argument that it didn’t have to disclose inter-agency memos (here, between two departments in ENRD) because the agencies were in conflict. It may have ramifications, if it holds up, for post-Jicarilla trust cases if, for example, Justice and Interior (or Interior and NLRB) have opposing interests.
Here are the materials in Menasha Corp. v. DOJ (E.D. Wis.):
An excerpt from the opinion:
This case arises under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U . S.C. § 522. Plaintiffs Menasha Corporation (Menasha) and Neenah–Menasha Sewerage Commission (NMSC) allege that the Defendant, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), refused to provide records responsive to an administrative FOIA request (submitted to the DOJ on December 17, 2010). Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment which raises the question of whether lawyers at the DOJ who represent separate client agencies with adverse interests in the same litigation can share confidential information with each other without waiving attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, and the deliberative process privilege. The Court concludes that the answer is no, and therefore denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and orders the requested information produced.
Here is the post, titled “Pregnant Sioux Women Face ‘Hell-Rides’ to Hospital, Induced Labors — and the ACLU Wants to Know Why.” An excerpt:
When I read my baby books, they said I should discuss my birth plan with my doctor and get a tour of the hospital,” said a new mother from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, in South Dakota. “But there was nothing for me. Not even a few Lamaze classes. Just congratulations and good luck.”
She and other pregnant women
Here is the order in this long-standing case denying the Shinnecock Indian Nation’s FOIA request for documents related to its federal recognition — DCT Order on FOIA Requests
An excerpt about the docs:
On August 15, 2008, the Nation filed a second amended complaint in this action, which added two claims, the fifth and sixth claims for relief, to the complaint. The subject of the instant Memorandum and Order is the sixth claim in the second amended complaint, which seeks to compel, under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, the full disclosure of two documents, the first of which is being withheld in its entirety and the second having been produced in redacted form by Interior (hereinafter, “the FOIA claim”). Specifically, Interior has invoked the attorney work product doctrine and the executive deliberative process privilege to withhold these documents from full disclosure, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) (hereinafter, “Exemption 5”).
Turtle Talk 