Here are the materials and the unpublished decision in Howard v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes:
2015-05-15 Weldy and Thomas v Sho Pai (9th Cir 2015)
Dkt. Entry 11 Appellant’s Opening Brief-10-11-13
Dkt. Entry 20-1 Appellee’s Answering Brief-12-11-13
Dkt. Entry 27 Appellant’s Reply Brief-01-27-14
Lower court decision here:
Here are the briefs in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior:
Oral argument video and audio.
CA9 opinion here. Opinion after settlement here.
District court materials:
An excerpt:
This action stems from the long-standing desire of the plaintiff, the Navajo Nation, to obtain the immediate repatriation of 303 sets of human remains and other associated cultural objects removed by the National Park Service (“NPS”) from the Canyon de Chelly National Monument (“the Monument”), which is a unit of the NPS located within the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Reservation; the human remains and cultural objects at issue are currently being held by the NPS at its Western Archeology Conservation Center in Tucson, Arizona.
Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California:
From the court’s syllabus:
The en banc court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of a tribe that alleged that the State of California had failed to negotiate in good faith for a gaming compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for Class III gaming on a parcel of land taken into trust for the tribe by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Rejecting California’s argument that the tribe lacked standing to compel it to negotiate in good faith under the IGRA, the en banc court held that the State’s argument amounted to an improper collateral attack on the BIA’s decisions to take the parcel of land into trust and to designate the tribe as a federally recognized Indian tribe. The en banc court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a continuance for additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
The en banc court dismissed the tribe’s cross-appeal as moot.
Links to oral argument and briefs here.
Here is the order in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:
2015-05-28 Dkt #57 Denial of Pet for Rehearing En Banc
En banc petition here.
Here is the opinion in Cosentino v. Fuller:
An excerpt:
For sovereign immunity to apply, the claims against tribal officials must be based on actions the officials took in their official capacity and within the scope of their official authority. An official’s actions that exceed the scope of his or her authority are not protected. Although the parties do not dispute that as members of the tribe’s gaming commission Defendants had the authority to revoke a gaming license if they received reliable information the licensee no longer satisfied the requirements for obtaining a license or had engaged in conduct that reflected poorly upon the tribe or its gaming activities, the record lacks evidence showing Defendants received any such information about Cosentino or an explanation of why they revoked his gaming license. Cosentino, however, presented evidence supporting his claim Defendants exceeded the scope of their authority by revoking his license without cause and in retaliation against him. Sovereign immunity prevents us from inquiring into the reliability of information Defendants may have relied upon in revoking Cosentino’s license or any other errors they may have made, but it does not prevent inquiry into whether Defendants exceeded their authority by using their official position to intentionally harm Cosentino.
Materials in a related Ninth Circuit matter are here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. Dept. of Interior.
An excerpt:
We conclude that the record, which includes declarations submitted by the Plaintiffs that provide little more than conclusory statements and which have not shown where the alleged sacred sites are located at the Ivanpah Project site, is insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ claim that the loss of access to the limited area taken by the Ivanpah Project imposes a substantial burden. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs have not shown that they are either “forced to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit,” or “coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil or criminal sanctions” as this court requires to establish a substantial burden under RFRA.
Briefs and lower court materials are here.
Here are the materials in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Lanier (E.D. Cal.):
82-1 Blue Lake Motion for Summary J
Here is the petition in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:
Here are the opening briefs in National Mining Assn. v. Jewell:
16 – Open Brief – no Addendum (Quaterra)
18 – Open Brief & Addendum (NMA)
29 – Utah, AZ, NV, MT – Amicus in Favor of Reversal
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.