Here are the materials in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Lifting TRO and Denying Preliminary Injunction
News coverage here.
Karuk Tribe
Ninth Circuit Briefing in City of Yreka’s Effort to Block Karuk Trust Acquisition for Medical Center
Here are the materials (so far) in City of Yreka v. Salazar:
Lower court materials here.
Karuk Tribe Files Lawsuit to Challenge Suction Dredges
Federal Court Affirms Interior Trust Acquisition for Karuk Tribe
Here are the materials in City of Yreka v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Granting Summary J to Government
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs argue that the regional director failed to consider the impact of gaming uses. (Pls.’ Mot. at 6:26–7:28; Pls.’ Opp’n at 4:22–28.) However, the Secretary need not consider “speculati[ve]” future uses of the land. See City of Lincoln City, 229 F.Supp.2d at 1124; see e.g., South Dakota I, 423 F.3d at 801, 801 n. 9 (holding that “the Secretary was not required to seek out further evidence of possible gaming purposes in light of the Tribe’s repeated assurances that it did not intend to use the land for gaming,” a letter from the then-state governor stating that he had been assured that the tribe would not conduct gaming on the land, and the tribe’s acknowledgment that “if it were later to seek to allow gaming on the land, it would fully comply with the additional application and approval requirements in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721”). As the IBIA’s decision explained the issue:
This fear … is entirely speculative. Nothing in the record suggests that the Tribe contemplates the use of the parcel for gaming. To the contrary, not only does the Tribe admit that the land does not qualify for gaming use under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a), but the Tribe contends that the renovated site is completely developed and could not feasibly or fiscally-responsibly be used for gaming even if the Tribe wanted it to be so used. Additionally Tribal Resolution No. 07–R–160, approved on December 19, 2007, explicitly eschewed the use of the parcel for gaming.
City of Yreka, 51 IBIA at 296–97. Accordingly, the regional director adequately considered the tribe’s purpose for the land.
Hoopa Loses Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act Claim
Here is the opinion in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States (hoopa-v-us-dct-order). Classic prisoner’s dilemma case. Hoopa, Yurok, and Karuk had been compressed together by the United States in the 19th century, and have been disputing the resources of the Hoopa Valley “square” for decades. Congress settled the thing in 1988, splitting the resources, on the condition that each party would waive the right to continue to sue. Hoopa waived its rights and received its share. Yurok did not, and sued, and lost. But it looks like they still get the money. Odd case.
Karuk Wins Salmon Ad Case
Here is the opinion.
News coverage from Indianz:
The Karuk Tribe of California won its free-speech lawsuit over a salmon advertisement that was rejected by a a public transit agency in Oregon.
The tribe and an environmental group called Friends of the River wanted to place the Salmon for Savings ad on Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) buses. It was rejected because TriMet said it was not a commercial ad or a public service announcement. But Judge Henry C. Breithaupt of the Oregon Tax Court said the policy violated the U.S. and Oregon constitutions. The ad promotes the removal of dams in the Klamath River Basin to restore salmon runs.
Get the Story:
TriMet loses case over its ad rejection (The Oregonian 6/4)
Tax Court upholds tribe in lawsuit against Tri-Met (AP 6/3)
Press Release: Judge Rules Against TriMet in Free Speech Case over Klamath Dams Ad (IndyBay Media 6/3)
Related Stories:
Karuk Tribe sues over rejected salmon advertisement (2/21)
Turtle Talk 