Here are the briefs:
Oral argument video here.
Lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit Oral Argument in Tohono O’Odham Nation v. Arizona
Supreme Court Extends Preliminary Injunction in Akina v. Hawaii
Documents and orders filed in the District court posted here.
Petitioner’s emergency application here.
Link to SCOTUS docket proceedings here.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to approve Justice Kennedy’s preliminary injunction issued last Friday. We will post further filings when they are made available.
United States v. Bryant Cert Stage Briefs
Here:
Zepeda v. United States Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
The Indian Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, makes it a federal crime for an “Indian” to commit any one of thirteen enumerated acts in “Indian country.” In this case, the en banc Ninth Circuit held that an element of the offense in prosecutions under this statute is proof that the defendant has “Indian blood,” whether or not that blood tie is to a federally recognized tribe. The question presented is:
Whether, as construed by the Ninth Circuit, Section 1153 impermissibly discriminates on the basis of race.
Supreme Court Petition Involving NAGPRA, Rule 19, and Tribal Immunity
Here is the petition in White v. Regents of the University of California:
Questions presented:
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which governs repatriation of human remains to Native American tribes, contains an enforcement provision that states, “The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by any person alleging a violation of this chapter and shall have the authority to issue such orders as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this chapter.” 25 U.S.C. § 3013. Over a strong dissent, a divided Ninth Circuit panel held that a party can prevent judicial review of controversial repatriation decisions by claiming a tribe is a “required party” under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the tribe invokes tribal immunity. The questions presented are:
1. Whether Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a district court dismiss any case in which a Native American tribe with immunity is deemed to be a “required party.”
2. Whether tribal immunity extends to cases where Rule 19 is the only basis for adding a tribe, no relief against the tribe is sought, and no other forum can issue a binding order on the dispute; and if so, whether Congress abrogated tribal immunity as a defense to claims arising under NAGPRA.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE (1/4/16): Anthropologists Amicus Brief
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Takeda Pharmaceuticals America v. Connelly
NCAI Amicus Brief in United States v. Bryant
Ninth Circuit Decides Tohono O’Odham Nation v. State of Arizona
Here is the opinion. From the court’s syllabus:
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in an action challenging the constitutionality of H.B. 2534, an Arizona law that allows a city or town within populous counties to annex certain surrounding, unincorporated lands.
The Tohono O’odham Nation purchased unincorporated land in Maricopa County, Arizona. The Nation alleged that H.B. 2534 was enacted in order to block the federal government from taking the land it purchased into trust on behalf of the Nation, a process that would render the land part of the Nation’s reservation pursuant to the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act. H.B. 2534 was enacted after the Nation announced its intention to build a casino on “Parcel 2” of the land, and after the Secretary of the Interior decided to take Parcel 2 into trust.
The panel affirmed the district court’s holding that H.B. 2534 is preempted by the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act because it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of the Act namely, to enable the Secretary to take Parcel 2 into trust and thereby incorporate the land into tribal land.
The panel concluded that under H.B. 2534, the City of Glendale, Arizona, purportedly had the authority ̄at the point when the Nation filed a trust application ̄to preemptively annex unincorporated land and effectively block the trust application.
The panel thus affirmed the legality of the Secretary’s taking of Parcel 2 into trust pursuant to the Act. It did not reach the Nation’s other challenges to H.B. 2534.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.