Here:
2015-03-16 – Phase 1 summary judgment earing transcript (original)
2015-04-13 – Dkt 10-1 – ACBCI Answer to Petition
Petition for Permission to Appeal-c2
Previous post here.
Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Interior Withdrawal of Grand Canyon Lands from Uranium Mining
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
Decision in Tulalip Tribes v. Washington
Opinion here.
Previous coverage here.
Our conclusion is consonant with our instruction in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes that courts should hold compacting parties to the ordinary meaning of terms in their agreements. Id. at 1098–100. The plain language of the Spokane Compact shows that the Inter-Tribal Fund mechanism available to the Spokane Tribe carries with it interdependent conditions and consequences. Tulalip’s amendment would not match those terms. We take no view on whether the terms of Appendix Spokane are in fact more favorable than those included in the Tulalip Compact. We hold simply that Tulalip is not entitled as a matter of law to the more selective set of terms in its proposed amendment.2 The most-favored tribe clause does not allow a “pick and choose” arrangement. The district court correctly entered judgment for the State. Simply put, Tulalip’s proposal does not mirror the restrictions of Appendix Spokane, and those are the terms to which the State agreed.
Ninth Circuit Opening Briefs in Challenge to EPA Permit for Navajo Generating Station
Here:
Environmental Groups Opening Brief
A second appeal involving the Hopi Tribe’s challenge has been severed from this consolidated appeal:
Ninth Circuit Reverses Judgment Favoring Crow Nation against HUD
Here is the opinion in Crow Tribal Housing Authority v. HUD.
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel vacated the district court’s order remanding the case to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for a hearing, reversed the judgment, and remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of HUD in a case brought by the Crow Tribal Housing Authority, arising from a dispute involving Indian housing block grants made under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.
The panel held that the district court erred in ruling that HUD violated Crow Housing’s right to Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996’s notice and reporting requirements under 25 U.S.C. §§ 4161 and 4165.
Specifically, the panel concluded that HUD did not act under § 4161, and accordingly, could not have violated a hearing requirement under that section. The panel further concluded that HUD’s actions triggered the opportunity for a hearing under § 4165 when it conducted an on-site review of Crow Housing in August 2004. Finally, the panel held that because Crow Housing did not request a hearing, HUD did not violate its statutory obligation under § 4165 and did not improperly deprive Crow Housing of a hearing under the facts of the case.
Briefs and materials are here.
Ninth Circuit Materials in Carsten v. Nevada Inter-Tribal Council — FMLA Claims
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Pala Disenrollments
Here is the unpublished opinion in Allen v. Smith:
031.1 – Memorandum Disposition(83952089_1)
Excerpt:
This relief sought by the Appellants clearly operates against the Tribe. The
requested relief would prevent the Tribe from disenrolling the Appellants and
compel it to reinstate their membership and tribal benefits. Even the request for
compensatory and punitive damages (to be paid by the Appellees, not the Tribe)
would interfere with the Tribe’s public administration, because the monetary
damages are predicated on this court’s determination that the disenrollment of the Appellants was improper. Thus, we conclude that Appellants’ suit should be
construed as a suit against the Tribe itself.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Consumer Financial Protection Board v. Great Plains Lending
Here:
Great Plains Lending Opening Brief
Great Plains Lending Reply Brief
Lower court materials here.
Materials on Makah Indian Tribe’s Request for Determination Re Quileute and Quinault Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds in the Pacific Ocean
There is the potential for an enormous amount of chaos for both US v. Washington and for any Indian tribe with extant treaty rights based on the arguments going on here now. Most notably, several tribes (Quinault, Quileute, and Hoh) are claiming that the Sherrill-based equitable defenses may apply in some way to Indian treaty claims.
I find this personally horrifying and disturbing — that any tribe would claim that Sherrill and its Second Circuit progeny apply to treaty rights. Sherrill is a statute-based claim, and so are the Second Circuit cases that purport to follow its reasoning. Treaty rights are an entirely different genre.
I sincerely hope the U.S. v. Washington tribes will opt-out of federal litigation — with its potential to undercut treaty rights for tribes all over the country — and move toward an inter-tribal treaty. There is at least one proposal on the table, and tribal leaders and tribal constituents should act quickly to adopt it. These inter-tribal disputes are doing nothing now but threatening to make bad law for everyone.
Luckily, Judge Martinez did not hold that equitable defenses apply here, but who knows what will happen in the Ninth Circuit and beyond.
Here are the new materials in subproceeding 09-01 of United States v. Washington (No. 70-9213) (W.D. Wash.):
248 Makah Motion for Summary J on Equitable Defenses
251 Quinault and Quileute Motion for Summary J
267 Quinault and Quileute Response to 248 Motion
274 Makah Reply in Support of 248 Motion
275 Interested Tribes Response to 251 – Equitable Defenses
279 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 251
281 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 251
283 Quileute and Quinault Motion to Define Burden of Proof
284 Interested Tribes Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
285 US Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
286 Upper Skagit Tribe Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
287 Makah Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
288 State of Washington Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
289 Quileute and Quinault Reply to 284 in Support of 283
290 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 283
304 DCT on Motions for Summary J
Materials in a related pending Ninth Circuit matter in subproceeding 09-01 are here.
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Reservation v. McKenna Cert Petition
Here:
Question presented:
Whether federal courts called upon to enforce Indian treaty protections in tribal challenges to State regulation may enter judgment against the Indian Tribe without considering evidence and entering findings of fact on the Indians’ understanding of the United States’ treaty promises.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.