Here is the opinion in Yurok Tribe v. Klamath Water Users Assn.
Briefs:
Hoopa Valley Tribe
SCOTUS Declines to Review Ninth Circuit’s Rule 19/Tribal Immunity Decision
Here is Monday’s order list.
The petition was Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation: petition and opposition briefs.
Federal and Tribal Briefs in Opposition in Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation
Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation Cert Petition [Rule 19 & Tribal Immunity]
Here:
Question presented:
Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires dismissal of an action challenging a federal agency’s use of water subject to state-adjudicated water rights if a Native American tribe asserts an interest in the suit and does not consent to joinder.
Lower court materials here.
Klamath and Hoopa Tribes Prevail in Ninth Circuit Klamath River Water Distribution Challenge
Here is the opinion in Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation.
Briefs:
Klamath irrigation Opening Brief
Lower court materials here.
Fifth Circuit Decides Federal Diversity Jurisdiction Matter Involving Hoopa Valley Tribe
Here is the opinion in Mitchell v. Bailey.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
Fifth Circuit Briefs in Immunity/Federal Jurisdiction Case Involving Hoopa Valley Tribe
Here are the briefs in Mitchell v. Bailey:
Lower court materials in Mitchell v. Bailey (W.D. Tex.):
Update in Klamath River Flow Litigation [Rule 19 Motion]
Here are updated materials in Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation (D. Or.):
Dkt 89 Magistrate Findings and Recommendation of Dismissal
ECF 70 Second Amended Complaint
ECF 73 Shasta 2nd amended complaint
ECF 75 Klamath Motion to Dismiss
ECF 76 Feds Response to Motion to DIsmiss
ECF 83 Hoopa Reply Re Dismissal
ECF No 77 ShastaViewOppMotDismiss
Here is a new pleading in a related case, Yurok Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation (N.D. Cal.):
Additional materials (9/8/22):
Cert Petition by Western Ranchers and Farmers Challenging Reserved Water Rights [updated]
Here is the petition in Bales v. United States:
Question presented:
Whether, against the legal backdrop of Congress’s and this Court’s recognition of the primacy of state law to determine, quantify, and administer water rights, a federal court may deem federal agency regulatory action under the Endangered Species Act to constitute the adjudication and administration of water rights for tribal purposes.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Federal Circuit Decides Baley v. United States [Indian reserved water rights to Klamath River water predate farmers]
Here is the opinion.
Here are the briefs:
klamath-tribe-amicus-brief.pdf
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.