Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas Background Materials

Merits Stage

Cert Stage

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo’s Cert Petition

Brief of Amici Curiae Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, NCAI, NIGA, and USET in support of Cert Petition

Texas’ Cert Opp

Reply of petitioners Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

Brief amicus curiae of United States in favor of SCOTUS review

Texas’ Supplemental brief

Fifth Circuit

Texas v Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 5th Circuit Opinion

Pueblo Brief

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Amicus Brief

Texas Brief

Reply

District Court

1 Complaint

9 texas motion for pi

17 tribe response

18 reply

54 tribe supplemental memo re cause of action

59 texas supplemental brief

64 magistrate report

67 tribe objection

68 texas objections

77 dct order

83 Tribe Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

86 Texas Response

87 Answer + Counterclaims

90 Reply

97 Texas Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

98 Tribe Response

99 Reply

115 DCT Order

121 First Amended Counterclaims

146 Texas Motion for Summary Judgment

147 Texas AG Motion for Summary Judgment

153 Tribe Response to Texas AG

154 Tribe Response to Texas

157 Texas Reply

158 Texas AG Reply

176 DCT Order on MSJ re Counterclaims

183 DCT Order

California COA Decides Acres v. Marston

Here is the opinion:

Briefs:

Keep in mind as to this case and the related Ninth Circuit case we posted a while ago here, this is about a nonmember sued by a tribe in tribal court for breach of contract, a nonmember who won before the tribal court, and now is suing the tribal judges, tribal employees, and the lawyers for the tribe for racketeering because the nonmember believes there was a conspiracy against him. The only reason this case exists is because of the Lewis v. Clarke decision (preceded by Ninth Circuit cases) that holds individuals who work for tribes sued in their individual capacities are not immune. Even if the nonmember’s claim here has validity (seems very unlikely but who knows?), this case is definitive proof that the Lewis v. Clarke precedent will allow absolutely frivolous contract and other claims to proceed against tribes on the Lewis v. Clarke fiction that tribal employees sued in their individual capacity are somehow not engaged in tribal governmental activity and that the tribes that indemnify their employees are doing so for reasons unrelated to tribal governmental prerogatives. Here, we’re talking tribal judges (including an associate judge who was not assigned the case), a court clerk, and lawyers retained by the tribe to merely serve as counsel for the tribe, among others. They might all win below, as the court here suggests, but they have to make the correct arguments in what appears to be a game of whack-a-mole.

California COA Dismisses Coyote Valley Band Appeals under Disentitlement Doctrine

Here are the materials in Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians:

A156459 [opinion]

Findleton Brief A156459

Findleton Brief A158171 A158172 A158173

Tribe Brief A156459

Tribe Brief A158171 A158172 A158173

Tribe Brief A159823

Tribe Reply A156459

Tribe Reply A158171 A158172 A158173

First Circuit Decides Second Aquinnah Tribe Gaming Appeal

Here are the opinion and briefs in Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association Inc. v. Wamapnoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah):

Opinion

Tribe Opening Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

Town of Aquinnah Principal Brief

Martha’s Vineyard Amicus Brief

Tribe Reply

Tribe Response to MVC Amicus Brief

Town of Aquinnah Reply

Prior post here.

First Circuit materials in earlier appeal.

Additional Collateral Challenge to Guidiville Rancheria Casino Rejected

Here are the new materials in Sprawldef v. City of Richmond (N.D. Cal.):

130 Motion to Amend

131 Opposition to 130

134 Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

136 Reply in Support of 130

138 Opposition to 134

139 Reply in Support of 134

143 DCT Order

Prior post in this case here.

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Claim that Tribe “Stole” Jackpot

Here are the materials in Dotson v. Tuniuca-Biloxi Gaming Commission:

Per Curiam Opinion

Dotson Brief

Tribe Brief

Selected lower court materials in Dotson v. Tuniuca-Biloxi Gaming Commission (W.D. La.) here:

52-1 Motion to Dismiss

77 Magistrate Report

81 DCT Order