Sixth Circuit Briefs in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Whitmer

Here:

LTBB Opening Brief 

Defendant-Appellee Whitmer Brief

Emmet County Lake Shore Assn and Protection of Rights Alliance Brief

Intervenor-Appellees–Cross-Appellants Combined Brief

Townships Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Decides Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Whitmer [formerly Snyder]

Here is the order:

627-dct-order-1.pdf

Briefs here.

Case page here.

Updated Pleadings in Little Traverse Reservation Case

Here are the updated pleadings in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Whitmer (W.D. Mich.):

568 Municipal Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

572 Governor Motion to Dismiss on Jurisdiction

579 Property Owners Motion

582 Governor Motion for Summary Judgment

583 LTBB Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re Intervenors

586 LTBB Motion for Summary Judgment — Historical

591 Intervenors Response to 583

596 LTBB Response to 572

601 LTBB Reply in Support 583

603 Municipal Defs Response to 586

606 Governor Response to 586

608 Municipal Defs Response to 583

610 – Tribe’s Resp. in Opp. to Municipal Def. Motion for SJ

611 – Tribe’s Resp. Brief in Opp. to State’s Motion for SJ

612 – Tribe’s Resp. in Opp. to Associations Motion for SJ

Prior posts here and here.

Federal Court Rejects Counties/Cities & Tribe’s Motions in LTBB Reservation Boundaries Case

Here are the orders in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Whitmer (W.D. Mich.):

554 dct order on defendants’ motion

555 dct order on tribe’s motion

Materials here.

Little Traverse Moves for Summary Judgment in Reservation Boundaries Case

Here are the materials in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Snyder (W.D. Mich.):

Docket 311 – Tribe’s Motion for Partial SJ re 1994 Reaffirmation of Rights

Docket 312 – Tribe’s Memo iso Motion for Partial SJ re 1994 Reaffirmation of Rights

Docket 312-1 – Ex Index – Tribe’s Memo iso Motion for Partial SJ re 1994 Reaffirmation of Rights

Docket 312-2 – Ex. A – Tribe’s Memo iso Motion for Partial SJ re 1994 Reaffirmation of Rights

Docket 312-3 – Ex. B – Tribe’s Memo iso Motion for Partial SJ re 1994 Reaffirmation of Rights

Docket 312-4 – Ex. C – Tribe’s Memo iso Motion for Partial SJ re 1994 Reaffirmation of Rights

Docket 312-5 – Ex. D – Tribe’s Memo iso Motion for Partial SJ re 1994 Reaffirmation of Rights

Docket 312-6 – Ex. E – Tribe’s Memo iso Motion for Partial SJ re 1994 Reaffirmation of Rights

Docket 312-7 – Ex. F – Tribe’s Memo iso Motion for Partial SJ re 1994 Reaffirmation of Rights

Prior posts here.

UPDATE (5/11/2018):

332 Cities and Counties Brief

333 Associations Brief

335 Snyder Brief

352 LTBB Reply

429 cities motion to dismiss

513 ltbb response

530 cities reply

543 LTBB supplemental brief

552 dct order

 

News Commentaries on Little Traverse Reservation Boundaries Case

LTBB Chair Gina Gasco-Bentley: “Tribe seeks to protect own, not control others

Lance Boldrey: “Tribe seeks to reshape governance of region

More details on Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Snyder (W.D. Mich.) here.

News Profile of LTBB Reservation Litigation

Here is “Long lawsuit ahead regarding tribal reservation: Federal judge orders two phases to tribal lawsuit, first phase could go to 2018.”

Court docs here.

Federal Court Issues Order in Little Traverse Reservation Boundaries Case Bifurcating Merits and Remedies Phases

Here is the order in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Snyder (W.D. Mich.):

91. 2016-07-06 Opinion and Order Bifurcating Case and Granting Denying Plf’s MSD

An excerpt:

“‘Only Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries,’ and its intent to do so must be clear.” Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072, 1078–79 (2016) (quoting Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 470 (1984)). Even when a reservation exists and has not been diminished, however, a “long delay in seeking equitable relief . . . [can] evoke the doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, and render inequitable the piecemeal shift in governance [a] suit seeks unilaterally to initiate.” City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 221 (2005); cf. Parker, 136 S. Ct. at 1082 (citing Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 217–221) (“Because petitioners have raised only the single question of diminishment, we express no view about whether equitable considerations of laches and acquiescence may curtail the Tribe’s power to tax the retailers of Pender in light of the Tribe’s century-long absence from the undisputed lands.”).

These two principles frame the dispute this motion presents: May equitable defenses lie in this lawsuit? To best answer this question and organize this case, bifurcation is appropriate. In the first phase, which will address the existence and diminishment of a reservation, equitable defenses cannot lie. If necessary, the Court will revisit the dispute at the second, remedial phase.

Here are the briefs:

Doc. 66 – Tribe’s Memorandum in Support of Combined Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Defenses or Rule 26(b) Motion to Limit Discovery

Doc. 75 – State’s Brief in Opposition to Tribe’s Combined Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Rule 12(F) Motion to Strike Defenses or Rule 26(B) Limit Discovery

Doc. 80 – Tribe’s Combined Reply in Support of Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Alternative Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Defenses and Rule 26(b) Motion to Limit Discovery

Michigan Answer to LTBB Reservation Boundaries Complaint

Here is the answer in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Snyder (W.D. Mich.):

5 Answer

The complaint is here.