Ninth Circuit – Page 29

Profile of Ninth Circuit Judge Mary Murphy Schroeder

August 21, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Amazing story — “Mary Murphy Schroeder: She Broke Barriers From the Start.”

Ninth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction

August 20, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Begay.

Ninth Circuit Partially Reinstates Section 1983 Claim against San Bernardino County Law Enforcement

August 19, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon.

An excerpt:

It is undisputed that the Sheriff cannot enforce regulatory traffic laws in “Indian country.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 28 U.S.C. § 1360. “Indian country” includes, but is not limited to, land within the boundaries of a reservation. 18 U.S.C. § 1151. The issues for decision today are (1) whether the individual Tribe members and the Tribe can challenge the citations through a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action; and, if so, (2) whether Section 36 is Indian country. We hold that the individual plaintiffs, but not the Tribe, can challenge the citations under § 1983. And, we conclude that all the citations occurred within Indian country. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint as to the individuals but affirm the judgment as to the Tribe.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Hawks

August 9, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

This appeal presents the question of whether the grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 encompasses an action to recognize and enforce a tribal court’s award against nonmembers of the tribe. The district court concluded that the action, filed by an Indian tribe seeking to enforce a tribal court judgment against nonmembers, did not present a federal question and dismissed it based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Inherent in the recognition of a tribal court’s judgment against a nonmember is a question regarding the extent of the powers reserved to the tribe under federal law. As in previous decisions involving the application of tribal law to nonmembers, we hold that actions seeking to enforce a tribal judgment against nonmembers raise a substantial question of federal law. We accordingly reverse the district court’s order dismissing the case for lack of subject of matter jurisdiction.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in JW Gaming Development v. James [Pinoleville Pomo Nation]

August 8, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs:

opening-brief-2.pdf

answer-brief-1.pdf

reply-4.pdf

Lower court materials here.

Oral argument video:

Ninth Circuit Decides Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeno Indians v. Sweeney (formerly Black)

August 7, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

Briefs here.

Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria Cert Petition

July 31, 2019October 15, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

cert-petition.pdf

Questions presented:

“[T]he inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe.” Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). The Montana Court recognized two limited narrow exceptions to that rule. But the Court has never resolved the question of whether tribal courts may ever exercise civil tort jurisdiction over nonmembers. In Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008) and in Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC v. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, et. al. 136 S.Ct. 2159 (2016) the issue was brought before this Court, but unanswered. This case presents the issue of: Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers?

Further this case presents the issue of: If the Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims over nonmembers, what is the prerequisite notice of any such authority, what is the prerequisite consent thereto by a nonmember, and what is the viable scope of such jurisdiction so as to satisfy the Due Process rights of a nonmember?

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

Brief in Opposition–PDFA