Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Decides Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

This case presents the question whether the State of Washington may exercise criminal jurisdiction over members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation who commit crimes on reservation land. To answer that question, we must interpret a 2014 Washington State Proclamation that retroceded—that is, gave back—“in part,” civil and criminal jurisdiction over the Yakama Nation to the United States, but retained criminal jurisdiction over matters “involving non-Indian defendants and non-Indian victims.” If “and,” as used in that sentence, is conjunctive, then the State retained jurisdiction only over criminal cases in which no party—suspects or victims—is an Indian. If, by contrast, “and” is disjunctive and should be read as “or,” then the State retained jurisdiction if any party is a non-Indian. We conclude, based on the entire context of the Proclamation, that “and” is disjunctive and must be read as “or.” We therefore affirm the district court.

Briefs here. Oral argument video here.

United States Petitions for Cert in Case Involving Tribal Police Authority to Detain Non-Indians

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the cert petition in United States v. Cooley:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search respondent, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

NCAI Amicus Brief

NIWRC Amicus Brief

Waiver of Response

Ninth Circuit Briefs in SPRAWLDEF v. Guidiville Rancheria of California [Rule 19]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Guidiville Opening Brief

SPRAWLDEF Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States [leadership dispute]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States [leadership dispute]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Opening Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply

Oral argument:

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs on Chilkat Indian Village v. BLM

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Chilkat Opening Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Intervenor Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Two Challenges to North Fork Rancheria Gaming

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Club One Casino, Inc. v. Bernhardt.

Briefs here.

And here is the opinion in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of the Interior.

Briefs here.

Final Claim against Grand Canyon Uranium Mine Rejected

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Trust v. Provencio (D. Ariz.):

226 Enviros Motion for Summary J

233-1 Energy Motion for Summary J

234-1 Federal Motion for Summary J

237 Enviros Reply

248 Order

Prior post here.

Ninth Circuit Finds No Navajo Jurisdiction over Off-Rez Insurer

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. McPaul.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Again Rejects Lezmond Mitchell Challenges to Death Penalty, but Two Judges Question the Punishment

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Mitchell v. United States.

Judge Christen noted that this is the first intra-tribal carjacking crime to result in death:

I join the majority’s considered opinion in full, but write separately because the lengthy history of this case may make it easy to lose track of the fact that Mitchell did not receive the death penalty for his murder convictions. Mitchell was sentenced to death because, in the course of committing their atrocious crimes, he and his accomplice also committed a carjacking. In my view, it is worth pausing to consider why Mitchell faces the prospect of being the first person to be executed by the federal government for an intra-Indian crime, committed in Indian country, by virtue of a conviction for carjacking resulting in death.

Concurring Judge Hurwitz called on the AG to reconsider this matter:

I write separately to stress a point aptly made earlier in the long history of this case by Judge Reinhardt. See Mitchell v. United States, 790 F.3d 881, 894–97 (9th Cir. 2015) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting in part). The heinous crimes that gave rise to this case occurred entirely within the territory of the sovereign Navajo Nation. The defendant is a Navajo, as were the victims. The Navajo Nation has, from the outset of this case, opposed imposition of the death penalty on the defendant, as have members of the victims’ family