Here:
The panel materials are here.
Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Shingle Springs of Miwok Indians v. Caballeros
This is a trademark dispute between the federally recognized Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and an unaffiliated man purporting to act as “Chief” of the “Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.”
Here:
034 – Brief of Appellant Cesar Caballero(81539037_1)
040-1 – Answering Brief of Appellee Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians(81902896_1)
Lower court materials here.
Cert Opposition Briefs in Katie John Appeal
Here are the opposition briefs in Alaska v. Jewell:
Katie John Cert Opp [A second brief with the appendix: AFN Alaska v Jewell BIO app]
Cert petition here.
Ninth Circuit Grants En banc Review of Zepeda Major Crimes Act Indian Status Case
Ninth Circuit Rejects FTCA/Bivens Claims against Federal & Tribal Officers
Here is the unpublished opinion in Dupris v. McDonald.
An excerpt:
In 2006, Jesse Dupris and Jeremy Reed (the “Plaintiffs”) were arrested on tribal charges for assaults they did not commit. In 2008, they commenced this action against the members of the federal Task Force that arrested them and the United States under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and Plaintiffs have appealed. We affirm, concluding that: (1) the Plaintiffs’ claims against two members of the Task Force are barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) the remaining individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; and (3) the United States is immune from liability under the FTCA pursuant to the discretionary function exception.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Rule 19 Dismissal in Friends of Amador County v. Jewell
Here is the unpublished opinion. An excerpt:
The district court concluded next that joinder would not be feasible because the Tribe enjoys sovereign immunity as a federally recognized Indian tribe. Appellants challenge the validity of the Tribe’s federally recognized status but concede its existence. Indeed, the Tribe has been federally recognized since at least 1985, see Indian Tribal Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services, 50 Fed. Reg. 6055-02 (Feb. 13, 1985), and it thus has “the immunities and privileges available to other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States,” Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the Board of Indian Affairs, 77 Fed. Reg. 47,868-01 (Aug. 10, 2012).
Briefs and link to oral argument audio here.
Lower court materials here.
Answer Briefs in United States v. Washington Culverts Appeal
Ninth Circuit Materials in Friends of Amador County v. Salazar (Jewell)
Ninth Circuit Declares Interior Chukchi Sea Oil Leases Arbitrary and Capricious (in part)
Here are the materials in Native Village of Point Hope v. Jewell:
An excerpt:
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment entered in favor of federal defendants in an action challenging the government’s environmental impact statements analyzing the environmental effects of proposed leases for oil and gas development in the Chukchi Sea of the northwest coast of Alaska.
The panel held that the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the federal defendants properly took account of incomplete or unavailable information. The panel held, however, that the reliance in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on a one million barrel estimate of total economically recoverable oil was arbitrary and capricious.The panel remanded for further proceedings.
Judge Rawlinson concurred in part and dissented in part. Judge Rawlinson agreed with most of the majority opinion, but she did not agree that the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement acted arbitrarily in selecting one billion barrels of oil as the benchmark for analyzing the environmental affects of the proposed leases.
Briefs are here:
Split Ninth Circuit Panel Reverses Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California
Here is today’s opinion. The court’s syllabus:
Reversing the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the State of California did not violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to negotiate in good faith for a tribal-state gaming compact with Big Lagoon Rancheria.
The panel held that a tribe must have jurisdiction over “Indian lands” in order to file suit to compel negotiations under IGRA. Specifically, the tribe must have jurisdiction over the Indian lands upon which the gaming activity is to be conducted.
The panel held that although the State’s objection to the “Indian lands” requirement could be waived because it was not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction, the State preserved this issue for review. The panel held that the parcel at issue was not Indian lands, which include lands held in trust for a tribe, because under Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ authority to take lands in trust for a tribe extends only to tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Because Big Lagoon was not such a tribe, the BIA lacked authority to purchase the parcel in trust for Big Lagoon in 1994. Accordingly, Big Lagoon could not demand negotiations to conduct gaming on the parcel, and it could not sue to compel negotiations if the State fails to negotiate in good faith.
Dissenting, Judge Rawlinson wrote that the parcel was Indian lands under IGRA because under Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008), the State could not collaterally attack the BIA’s designation of trust lands years after its administrative and legal remedies had expired.
Briefs are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.