Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer

October 4, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage materials.

Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer Cert Petition

May 13, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Jamul Pet2

Questions presented:

1. Whether, in 1994, Congress eliminated the distinction between “historic tribes” and “created tribes” and, thereby, eliminated the requirement that a tribe must have pre-existed the United States to have tribal immunity

2. Whether the JIV, which became a quarter-blood Indian group in 1996, is a federally recognized tribe, with tribal immunity, by virtue of the fact that it is still on the list of “Indian tribal entities” eligible to receive BIA services.

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Jamul Indian Village Gaming Ops

September 8, 2020September 8, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Jamul Action Committee Appeal

March 21, 2017September 8, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs (so far) in Jamul Action Committee v. [Chaudhuri]:

Jamul Action Committee Opening Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Tribe Answer Brief

Lower court materials here.

Jamul Action Committee’s Challenge Dismissed

August 10, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):

123 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

127-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss

133-1 JAC Motion for Summary J

143 JAC Response to 123

144 JAC Response to 127

145 Tribe Reply

146 Federal Reply

151 DCT Order

This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit; those materials here.

Amended Opinion from 9th Circuit in JAC v. Chadhouri

July 19, 2016Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Download order and amended opinion here.

Link to previous coverage here.

Ninth Circuit Rejects NEPA Challenge to NIGC Authority

June 9, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri.

The court’s syllabus:

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus under the Administrative Procedure Act of a group of tribal members and organizations, alleging that the National Indian Gaming Commission violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it approved the Jamul Indian Village’s gaming ordinance for a casino in Jamul, California, without first conducting a NEPA environmental review. The district court held that the Gaming Commission’s approval of the 2013 gaming ordinance was not “major federal action” within the meaning of NEPA requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Affirming on different grounds than the district court, the panel held that even if the GamingCommission’s approval of the gaming ordinance was a major federal action within the meaning of NEPA, the GamingCommission was not required to prepare an environmental impact statement because there was an irreconcilable statutory conflict between NEPA and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, pursuant to San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581, 648 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that an agency need not adhere to NEPA “where doing so ‘would create an irreconcilable and fundamental conflict’ with the substantive statute at issue”).

Briefs here.