Here:
Lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit
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.
Cert Stage Briefing Complete in Jensen v. EXC Inc.
Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Tribe in $36.2M Compact Dispute
Here is the opinion in Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians v. State of California.
From the court’s syllabus:
Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians was entitled to rescission of the 2004 Amendment to the 1999 Tribal-State Compact governing operation of Class III, or casino-style, gaming on Pauma’s land.
The panel held that the interpretation of a Compact license pool provision in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Cmty. v. Cal., 618 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2010), applied, such that the State of California would be deemed to have misrepresented a material fact as to how many gaming licenses were available when negotiating with Pauma to amend its Compact. The panel held that, unlike a change in judicial interpretation of a statute or law, the doctrine of retroactivity does not apply to contracts. Once there has been a final judicial interpretation of an ambiguous contract provision, that is and has always been the correct interpretation from the document’s inception.
The panel held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Pauma’s misrepresentation claim. The panel held that the district court awarded the proper remedy to Pauma by refunding $36.2 million in overpayments, even though the district court mislabeled the remedy as specific performance, rather than rescission and restitution for a voidable contract. The panel held that this equitable remedy fell within the State’s limited waiver of its sovereign immunity in the Compacts, and thus was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
On cross-appeal, the panel held that Pauma was not entitled to seek redress under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because the State and Pauma actually reached a gaming Compact.
Dissenting, Chief District Judge Jarvey wrote that the State did not commit the tort of misrepresentation by interpreting the Compact differently than a later court decision. He also wrote that, under the language of the Compact, the State did not waive its sovereign immunity with respect to this claim.
Briefs here.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction for Theft from Blackfeet Tribe’s Po’Ka Project
Here is the opinion in United States v. Conti.
Ninth Circuit Audio and Video in United States v. Washington Culverts Appeal
Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Audio in Oklevueha Native American Church v. Lynch
Alaska v. Organized Village of Kake Cert Petition (Roadless Rule)
Here:
Question presented:
The question presented is: whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision contravenes the basic administrative law principle, established by this Court’s decisions, that an executive agency may change the policies of a previous administration based on the new administration’s different values and priorities, even though the relevant facts are unchanged.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Agua Caliente Band Water Rights Case
Here are the briefs in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District:
2016-02-18 – Dkt 036 – Brief of Amici Curiae Law Professors in Support of Appellee
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.