Download order and amended opinion here.
Link to previous coverage here.
Jamul Indian Village
Ninth Circuit Rejects NEPA Challenge to NIGC Authority
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.
Jamul Tribal Gaming Commission Request for Legal Services
Download RFQ here.
If you are interested in representing the JTGC, please submit a response as outlined above. Please direct any inquiries concerning the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to:
Chad Delgado, Executive Director
Jamul Tribal Gaming Commission
P.O. Box 2267
Spring Valley, CA 91979
Direct Phone: 619-303-9339
Email: cdelgado@jamulindianvillage.com
All Responses must be submitted to Jamul Tribal Gaming Commission, Attention: Chad Delgado, Executive Director on or before May 2, 2016, 4:00 P.M. PDT.
Former Leaders of Jamul Indian Village Sues over Casino
Here is the complaint in Rosales v. Dutschke (E.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs, WALTER ROSALES and KAREN TOGGERY are Native American residents of San Diego County of one-half or more degree of California Indian blood, and former leaders of the half-blood Indian community, known as the Jamul Indian Village, “JIV,” who until recently lived on the Indian cemetery in Jamul, where their families have lived since the late 1800’s. Rosales and Toggery own and control their families’ human remains and funerary objects that were interred in burial sites below, on, and above the Indian cemetery. Those remains and objects have been feloniously disinterred and desecrated by the Defendants in a race to illegally build a casino on the U.S. government’s portion of the Indian cemetery property before they are stopped and the law is enforced.
Update in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri
Here are the new materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):
60-1 Jamul Action Committee Motion for PI
62 Tribal Opposition to Motion for PI
63 NIGC Opposition to Motion for PI
67 Jamul Action Committee Reply
75-1 Rosales & Toggery Motion to File Amicus
75-2 Rosales & Toggery Amicus Brief
Federal Court Dismisses Jamul Action Committee Challenge under Rule 19 (with leave to amend)
Here are the materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Stevens (E.D. Cal.):
22 Jamul Indian Village Motion to Fiile Amicus Brief
22-1 Jamul Indian Village Motion to Dismiss
30 Jamul Action Committee Response to Jamul Indian Village
31 Jamul Action Committee Response to Feds
34 Jamul Indian Village Reply in Support of Amicus Motion
36 Jamul Indian Village Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
42-1 Jamul Action Committee Motion to Amend Complaint
We posted the complaint here.
Jamulians CEQA Complaint
Here is the complaint in Jamulians Against the Casino v. California Wildlife Conservation Board (Cal. Super.):
Jamul Action Committee v. Stevens: Carcieri-Style Challenge to Approval of Jamul Indian Village Gaming Management Contract
Here:
Cal. Appellate Court Remands Jamul Tribal Members’ Challenge to Tribal Gaming Operations
Here is the opinion in Jamulians against the Casino v. Iwasaki (Cal. App. 3rd Dist.):
Jamulians Against the Casino v Iwasaki
An excerpt:
Consistent with its litigation strategy in the trial court, the Tribe has declined to make a general appearance in this court as a respondent, but sought leave to appear as an amicus curiae (which we granted). Although the Tribe’s amicus brief makes colorable arguments in favor of its indispensible status, this is an issue on which the trial court must exercise its discretion in balancing several criteria in the first instance. We therefore will reverse the judgment sustaining the demurrer with directions to the trial court to address the merits of the issue on remand.
Federal Court Dismisses Long-Running Jamul Election and Land Disputes
Here is the opinion in Rosales v. United States (Ct. Cl.) — Rosales DCT Order Dismissing Complaints
Turtle Talk 