Here:
Case materials here.
Oral argument video here.
Ninth Circuit
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.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Gila River Indian Community v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Ninth Circuit Affirms Qualified Immunity for BIA Officers Who Arrested Non-Indian Pursuant to Tribal Court Bench Warrant
Here is the unpublished memorandum in Roberts v. Elliott (In re Roberts Litigation).
An excerpt:
The Supreme Court has not addressed the interaction between Oliphant’s rejection of inherent criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians and a non-Indian’s ability to waive the question of personal jurisdiction before the tribal court in criminal matters. The extent to which a non-Indian may consent to tribal jurisdiction is not settled law. Smith v. Salish Kootenai Coll., 434 F.3d 1127, 1136–40 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (discussing non-tribal member consent to jurisdiction in civil suits).
Briefs:
Ninth Circuit Remands False Claims Act Matter
Here is the opinion in United States ex rel. Cain v. Salish Kootenai College.
Materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.