Here:
Question presented:
Whether the Ninth Circuit’s mootness ruling warrants summary reversal where the panel clearly misapprehended governing law on mootness and on the authority of federal courts to order equitable relief affecting nonparties.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Nason (D.D.C.):
53-1 Tribe Motion for Summary J
64 Federal Motion for Summary J
Here are the materials in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Hendrickson (D. R.I.):
14 Tribe Motion to Transfer Venue
21 Tribe Motion for Reconsideration
23 DCt Order Granting 14 on Reconsideration
Complaint here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Caddo Nation v. Wichita and Affiliated Tribes.
Briefs here.
Here is the opinion in Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Bernhardt.
Briefs here.
Here is the complaint Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Federal Highway Administration (D.R.I.):
An excerpt:
The Tribe brings this action to challenge the termination of a programmatic agreement(“PA”) entered into pursuant to the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). The termination of the PA occurred after substantial construction had taken place on the project for which the PA was meant to address and resolve the adverse effects of the project on historic properties to the signatories’ satisfaction. The termination of the PA after substantial work had been performed on the project, and the subsequent final decision of the Federal Highway Association (“FHWA”) was arbitrary and capricious.
Here are the materials in Winnemem Wintu Tribe v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.), also known as Franco v. USFS:
160 DCT Order on Reconsideration
Prior post here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.