Here are those materials:
Grand Canyon Skywalk
Update in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development v. ‘Sa’ Nyu Wa: Complete Ninth Circuit Briefing
Here are the briefs (argument is October 19, 2012):
Lower court materials here.
Opening Ninth Circuit Brief Grand Canyon Skywalk Case
Grand Canyon Skywalk Case Stayed Pending Tribal Court Resolution
Here are the materials:
Prior materials on the request for TRO are here.
Public Radio Coverage of Grand Canyon Skywalk Controversy
An excerpt:
The Hualapai council members say the unfinished site is an embarrassment to the tribe, which approved the project despite some internal objections about building on land roughly 30 miles from a place central to the Hualapai creation story. Traditional tribal belief places man’s origin on Hualapai lands.
“I believe the canyon is a sacred place. The Hualapai look at is as a church. Why take trash and throw it in the church. I voted against it,” said Philip Bravo, a former council member. “What does the tribe have out there? A half-finished building.”
Angry at the developer, the tribe passed an ordinance last year creating a legal path to effectively cancel the developer’s contract through the sovereign right of eminent domain.
The tribe set compensation for the seizure at $11.4 million, a sum they said represents the fair value of a project that the Las Vegas-based developer says is worth over $100 million.
“They took everything. And then the tribal court issued an order that we were trespassers if we were even there. You do understand this is like Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, don’t you?” said Troy Eid, a lawyer for the Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Corporation, which built the skywalk.
There is little doubt that tribes can legally seize property for the public good, much like a state or the federal government. But by seizing a non-tangible asset of a non-Indian company as a way to escape a contentious business deal, the tribe may have stepped into untested waters.
“I think on first glance the tribe is exercising a power that they have. Whether they are exercising it wisely is a different question,” said Addie Rolnick, an expert in Indian law at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
More Grand Canyon Skywalk Materials
Federal Court Asks for Additional Briefing re: “Bad Faith” Exception to Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine in Grand Canyon Skywalk Case
Here is yesterday’s order:
The court stated:
On the day before oral argument, Plaintiff filed a supplemental statement of facts, including thirteen new exhibits, purportedly showing bad faith on the part of the tribe. Doc. 21. Plaintiff asserted for the first time at oral argument that this new information and the proffered testimony from the chairwoman of the tribal council would show that the bad faith exception applies. See Redwolf, 196 F.3d at 1065 (a party is exempt from exhausting its claims in tribal court where “an assertion of tribal jurisdiction is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith”).
By raising this issue at the last minute, Plaintiff has provided the Court with no briefing on the contours of the bad faith exception and has afforded Defendants little meaningful opportunity to respond. The Court cannot conclude that the bad faith exception applies on such an incomplete record. Because Plaintiff’s bad faith argument appears to be colorable, the Court will afford the parties an opportunity to brief the issue. The parties should address relevant case law on the bad faith exception, what evidentiary showing of bad faith is required, and the evidence each side claims in support of its position. Because time is important in Plaintiff’s claim, the Court will require the briefing in short order.
Materials are here:
Update in Grand Canyon Skywalk Controversy (Another One)
Update in Grand Canyon Skywalk Controversy
New materials in the developer’s effort to avoid the tribe’s move to using eminent domain to end the controversy:
GCSD Emergency Request for Service
Additional news coverage here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.