Here is the video in No Casino in Plymouth v. Zinke (briefs here).
Here is the video in County of Amador v. Dept. of Interior (briefs here).
Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit Affirms Indian Country DV Conviction
Here is the opinion in United States v. Seminole.
An excerpt:
We are far from solving the crisis of domestic violence, as “[t]his country witnesses more than a million acts of domestic violence, and hundreds of deaths from domestic violence, each year.” United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405, 1408 (2014). It is a crime that is “notoriously susceptible to intimidation or coercion of the victim to ensure that she does not testify at trial.” Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 832–33 (2006). Wyatt’s “spouse as victim” holding dictates that the district court correctly compelled the testimony of Limberhand.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
Ninth Circuit Allows Bishop Paiute Law Enforcement Case to Proceed
Here is the opinion in Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County.
An excerpt:
The Bishop Paiute Tribe (the “Tribe”) seeks a declaration that they have the right to “investigate violations of tribal, state, and federal law, detain, and transport or deliver a non-Indian violator [encountered on the reservation] to the proper authorities.” Before reaching this issue, the district court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, concluding that the case presents no actual case or controversy. On appeal, we are also asked to assess whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Because questions of federal common law can serve as the basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because this case presents a definite and concrete dispute that is ripe and not moot, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Citizens for a Better Way v. Zinke
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Pakootas v. Teck Caminco Metals
Ninth Circuit Briefs in United States v. King Mountain Tobacco Co. (No. 16-35956)
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy Reservation v. Dept. of Interior
Ninth Circuit Briefs in United States v. Cooley
Here:
An excerpt:
A tribal law enforcement officer conducted a welfare check on Cooley, who had pulled over on a public highway where it crosses the Crow Reservation. It appeared to the officer that he was dealing with a non-Indian person. Soon thereafter, the encounter raised suspicion that Cooley was impaired and trafficking drugs and guns. He was detained and transferred to state custody. The district court suppressed the evidence from the stop based on a new Fourth Amendment test it derived from a tribal roadblock case. The district court held that the detention of Cooley and search of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment because, at the time the tribal officer realized Cooley was a non-Indian, it was not obvious that a state or federal crime had occurred. This new obviousness standard, the court held, is “notably higher” than probable cause.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.