Maybe this is nothing, but this is a little bit WEIRD . . . in that the Ninth Circuit’s opinions webpage links to an order granting rehearing (here) but there was no response brief docketed AND there is nothing on the court’s docket sheet indicating the petition was granted.
Here is the petition BTW:
Knighton Petition for Rehearing
Panel materials here.
Here is the unpublished opinion.
Briefs here.
Here:
Question presented:
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 54 U.S.C. § 306108, requires federal agencies to consult with Indian tribes and other interested parties to assess and mitigate the potential adverse impacts that a project requiring federal approval may have on sites of historic and cultural significance.
The question presented here is whether the NHPA imposes a continuing obligation upon federal agencies to engage in consultation under Section 106 when an agency maintains supervision of an ongoing project, and has the opportunity to require changes to mitigate adverse impacts after the initial approval.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Cooley.
Briefs here.
Briefs here.
Here is the order in Indigenous Environmental Network v. Dept. of State:
ca9-order-denying-motion-for-stay.pdf
Briefs:
transcanada-motion-for-stay.pdf
indigenous-environmental-network-opposition.pdf
Here is the opinion in Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria of Northern Paiute Indians.
Briefs here.
Here is the opinion in Frank’s Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission.
Briefs here.
Here is the petition in Teck Metals Ltd. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (No. 18-1160):
Update:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), and RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016), correctly concluded that holding Teck liable for its discharges in Canada was not an impermissible extraterritorial application of CERCLA.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with this Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), and the Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits, correctly held that a State may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant because the defendant knew its conduct would have in-state effects, where the defendant’s relevant conduct occurred elsewhere.
3. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with the First Circuit and in tension with the opinions of this Court and several other circuits, correctly held that a defendant can be an “arranger” under CERCLA even if the defendant did not arrange for anyone else to dispose of or treat the waste.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.