Here is the unpublished opinion in Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. McPaul.
Briefs here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. McPaul.
Briefs here.
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
Here are the updated materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):
184 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
191 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
Prior post here.
Case tag here.
UPDATE (7/7/2020):
220 Individual Tribal Defendants Opposition to 191
221 Plaintiffs Opposition to 210-212
223 Reply in Support of 210-212
UPDATE (1/20/2021)
267 JW Gaming Supplemental Brief
Update (3/28/2021):
286 Motion for Reconsideration
Update (6/8/2021):
333 JW Gaming Motion to Enjoin Tribal Court Case
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly holds that tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers is established whenever a Montana exception is met, or whether, as the Seventh and Eighth Circuits have held, a court must also determine that the exercise of such jurisdiction stems from the tribe’s inherent authority to set conditions on entry, preserve tribal self-government, or control internal relations.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit has construed the Montana exceptions to swallow the general rule that tribes lack jurisdiction over nonmembers.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
You must be logged in to post a comment.