Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Lummi Tribe in Treaty Fishing Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the court’s opinion in United States (Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe) v. Lummi Tribe:

CA9 Opinion

The court’s syllabus:

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment entered in favor of the Klallam Tribe in a case involving a fishing territory dispute between two sets of Indian Tribes, brought pursuant to the continuing jurisdiction of the 1974 “Boldt Decree” issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The panel held that the issue of whether the waters immediately to the west of northern Whidbey Island were part of the Lummi Tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing grounds had not yet been determined. The panel held, therefore, that the district court erred in concluding that the issue was controlled by law of the case. The panel remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Judge Rawlinson dissented because she would hold that the district court properly applied the law of the case doctrine where the fishing rights issue was addressed in the prior opinion United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000).

Briefs and other materials here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Attempt to Arbitrate Pechange Tort Claims Statute under IGRA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the briefs in Cosentino v. Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians:

Cosentino Opening Brief

Pechanga Answer Brief

Repky brief TK

Lower court materials (C.D. Cal.):

12-1 Pechanga Motion to Dismiss

13 Cosentino Response

20 DCT Amended Order

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Oklevueha Native American Church v. Holder

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Oklevueha Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

National Council of Native American Churches et al. Amicus Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here. And here.

Prior Ninth Circuit materials here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. Jewell (ISDEAA Law Enforcement Funding)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Hopland Band Opening Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Hopland Reply Brief

Lower court materials here:

21 Tribal Motion for Summary J

32 US Motion for Summary J

32-1 Cruzan Declaration

34 Tribal Response

38 US Reply

55 DCT Order

We posted on this case here and here.

Opening Ninth Circuit Brief in Yakama/King Mountain Tax Dispute with US

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opening brief in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau:

Yakama Opening Brief

Lower court materials in King Mountain Tobacco Co. v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (E.D. Wash.) are here.

Federal Court Refuses to Allow Blue Lake Rancheria to Add Section 1983 Claims in FUTA Tax Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Morgenstern (E.D. Cal.):

67 Blue Lake Motion to Amend

69 California Opposition

70 Blue Lake Reply

72 DCT Order Denying Motion

Blue Lake had prevailed in the Ninth Circuit before.

BIA Decision Approving Glendale Area Trust Land Acquisition for Gaming Purposes for Tohono O’Odham Nation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

2014-07-03 Washburn Letter to Norris re Trust Decision

This is on remand from the Ninth Circuit’s mandate.

Ninth Circuit En Banc Oral Argument Audio in United States v. Zepeda

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Panel opinion here.

Ninth Circuit Grants En Banc Review in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here:

2014 0611 Order Granting Petition for Rehearing En Banc

En banc petition here. Supporting amicus briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

Supreme Court Cert Petition in FTCA/Bivens Claims against Federal & Tribal Officers

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the petition in Dupris v. Proctor:

Dupris Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether this Court should resolve a split among the circuit courts of appeal, created by the Ninth Circuit panel decision in this matter, as to whether federal agents have “discretion” to arrest an individual without probable cause, for purposes of sovereign immunity under the “discretionary function” doctrine of the Federal Tort Claims Act?
2. Whether this Court should resolve a split among the circuit courts of appeal as to whether a law enforcement officer’s pre-arrest consultation with a prosecutor, standing alone, entitles the officer to qualified immunity?
3. Given the federal agents’ testimony that there were not any “positive identifications” of Petitioners, contradictory to what the agents told the tribal prosecutor, whether this Court should remand pursuant to this Court’s recent holding in Tolan v. Cotton, — U.S. –, 134 S.Ct. 1861 (2014), to ensure that the Court of Appeals properly viewed all evidence in the light most favorable to the Petitioners?

Lower court materials here.