Ninth Circuit – Page 51

Zepeda v. United States Cert Petition

November 24, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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.

Opinion here. En banc materials here, here, and here. Panel materials and other materials here, here, and here.

Supreme Court Petition Involving NAGPRA, Rule 19, and Tribal Immunity

November 23, 2015January 4, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the petition in White v. Regents of the University of California:

White Cert Petition

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

November 20, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Takeda Opening Brief

Connelly Answer Brief

Takeda Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

NCAI Amicus Brief in United States v. Bryant

November 13, 2015Sarah M Donnelly

Brief in Support of Petitioner here.

U.S. cert petition previously posted here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Tohono O’Odham Nation v. State of Arizona

November 6, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.

Briefs here. Lower court materials here.

Cert Stage Briefing Complete in Jensen v. EXC Inc.

November 3, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Jensen Cert Petition

EXC Cert Opp

Jensen Reply

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Tribe in $36.2M Compact Dispute

October 26, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

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.