Here:
Petition for review briefs here.
Arizona COA materials here and here.
Trial court materials here:
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
Federal Dismisses FTCA Claims against US in Shooting of Tribal Member by Tribal Police
Here are the materials so far in Black v. United States (W.D. Wash.):
23 Port Gamble S’Klallam Response
31 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
Claims against Suquamish and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribes and officers remain.
Ninth Circuit Holds Interior Does Not Violate ISDEAA When Denying Law Enforcement Funds to PL280 Tribes
Here is the opinion in Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Capuño v. Jewell.
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians, and the court’s finding that the U.S. Secretary of the Interior violated the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection when the Secretary declined to enter into a self-determination contract with the Tribe to fund law enforcement on the Los Coyotes Reservation.
The panel held that the Secretary properly rejected the Tribe’s contract request. The panel also held that the Tribe’s reliance on the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act was misplaced because the Act allows the Tribe to take control of existing programs and obtain funds that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) would otherwise spend on those programs, but here there was no existing BIA program, and therefore nothing to transfer to the Tribe. The panel further held that the Administrative Procedure Act did not authorize the court to review the BIA’s allocation of law enforcement funding in Indian Country. Finally, the panel held that the BIA’s funding policy did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.
And the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
Arizona SCT Petition for Review of Dismissal of Tort Claim against Gila River Indian Community — Updated 8-28-13
Arizona COA Decides ISDEAA Immunity Case in Favor of Tribal Interests
Here is today’s opinion in Shirk v. Lancaster:
An excerpt:
Loren Shirk seeks damages for allegedly negligent conduct by two Gila River Indian Community (“GRIC”) police officers. Because we conclude the trial court erred in granting Shirk’s motion to set aside the prior final judgment in favor of the officers, we reverse.
Briefs are here. Lower court materials here. Materials in related case against City of Chandler here. Here are the materials in the federal case dismissing a Federal Tort Claims Act action.
Susanville Indian Rancheria v. United States — Contract Breach Claim for Failure to Pay IHS Contract Support Costs
Here:
An excerpt:
This is a suit against the United States for breach of contract and statute by the Indian Health Service (“IHS”), an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). Plaintiff, the Susanville Indian Rancheria (“Tribe”), seeks money damages under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. (“CDA”), based on the Secretary’s repeated violations of the Tribe’s contractual and statutory right to the payment of full funding of contract support costs (“CSC”) for contracts entered under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), Pub. L. No. 93-638, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq.
Susanville’s previous suit against IHS is here.
Arizona COA Briefs in ISDEAA Tribal Immunity Case — Case to Watch
Nixon Administration Redux — Two Papers from the Nixon Era
These two papers — from 1970 and 1974 — are interesting tidbits on the 1970 Nixon message to Congress and perhaps some backgrounds on the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Miigwetch to Bob Anderson for the 1970 paper, and miigwetch to whomever sent me the 1974 paper (poor form in losing the accompanying docs).
Colville Suit against IHS over Declination of Emergency Medical Services Self-Governance Compact Increase
Here is the complaint in Confederated Colville Tribes v. Sebelius (D. Or.):
Is a Tribal Officer a Federal Officer under the Major Crimes Act?
The question here is whether an assault on a tribal officer can be prosecuted as an assault on a federal officer under the Major Crimes Act. The court concluded that whether the tribal cop is a federal cop must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here is the Court’s opinion in United States v. Danley.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.