Here are the materials in Wilson v. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (D. Alaska):
Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. United States (D.D.C.):
Here is the complaint in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. United States Department of the Interior (D. Mont.):
This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages brought against the United States Department of the Interior (“Department”); its Secretary; and Regional Director for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) for violations of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”) and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Northern Arapaho Tribe (“NAT” or “Tribe”) submitted to the BIA a contract proposal for judicial services and requested technical assistance, consultation and a waiver of any regulations that the BIA thought could prevent or impede approval. The BIA failed or refused to provide technical assistance, consultation, or the requested waiver and declined the proposal. These failures and the declination violate the ISDEAA and applicable regulations. The Tribe is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, plus interest, pursuant to the ISDEAA.
Fletcher & Singel have posted “Indian Children and the Federal Tribal Trust Relationship” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
This article develops the history of the role of Indian children in the formation of the federal-tribal trust relationship and comes as constitutional challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) are now pending. We conclude the historical record demonstrates the core of the federal-tribal trust relationship is the welfare of Indian children and their relationship to Indian nations. The challenges to ICWA are based on legally and historically false assumptions about federal and state powers in relation to Indian children and the federal government’s trust relationship with Indian children.
Indian children have been a focus of federal Indian affairs at least since the Framing of the Constitution. The Founding Generation initially used Indian children as military and diplomatic pawns, and later undertook a duty of protection to Indian nations and, especially, Indian children. Dozens of Indian treaties memorialize and implement the federal government’s duty to Indian children. Sadly, the United States then catastrophically distorted that duty of protection by deviating from its constitution-based obligations well into the 20th century. It was during this Coercive Period that federal Indian law and policy largely became unmoored from the constitution.
The modern duty of protection, now characterized as a federal general trust relationship, is manifested in federal statutes such as ICWA and various self-determination acts that return self-governance to tribes and acknowledge the United States’ duty of protection to Indian children. The federal duty of protection of internal tribal sovereignty, which has been strongly linked to the welfare of Indian children since the Founding, is now as closely realized as it ever has been throughout American history. In the Self-Determination Era, modern federal laws, including ICWA, constitute a return of federal Indian law and policy to constitutional fidelity.
Here are the materials in Navajo Health Foundation – Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell (D. N.M.):
From the opinion:
Finally, the Court will grant the MSJ on two grounds. First, the Court will deem the Claim denied, because Dayish has not given Sage Hospital a “date certain” by which he will decide the Claim; rather, he conditioned his October 21, 2015, deadline upon Sage Hospital’s cooperation. Second, even if Dayish had given Sage Hospital a date certain by which he will decide the Claim, his proposed fourteen-month period for deciding the Claim is unreasonably long under the CDA.  Accordingly, even if the Court did not deem the Claim already denied, it would order Dayish to approve or deny the Claim by July 25, 2015.
Here are the materials in Yurok Tribe v. Dept. of Interior:
The Yurok Tribe (Tribe) appeals from the Civilian Board of Contracting Appeals’ (Board) dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. J.A. 2–3. Because the Tribe has not been awarded a contract, we affirm.
Ah, it’s a little old, but here are the materials in Navajo Health Foundation – Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell (D. N.M.):
The Court held a hearing on February 12, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court will order a permanent injunction; and (ii) whether the Court will order a preliminary injunction. The Court will not order a permanent injunction. The Court will, however, order a preliminary injunction to require Defendants Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Yvette Roubideaux, John Hubbard, Jr., and Frank Dayish (collectively, “the Defendants”), to fund the Navajo Health Foundation—Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc., according to the terms of: (i) the Annual Funding Agreement Between Navajo Health Foundation /Sage Memorial Hospital and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Fiscal Year 2013, filed January 13, 2015 (Doc. 21–2)(“2013 AFA”); and (ii) the Indian Self–Determination Contract Between Navajo Health Foundation/Sage Memorial Hospital and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, filed January 13, 2015 (Doc. 21–1)(“2010 Contract”), until this case is resolved on the merits. The Court will also order both parties to comply with the terms and conditions of the 2013 AFA and the 2010 Contract until this case is resolved on the merits. Among other things, this means that the Defendants must reinstate Sage Hospital’s coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(“FTCA”), as Section 4 of the 2013 AFA provides. The Court will not require Sage Hospital to post a bond.
Prior materials here.