Here are the materials in Pistor v. Garcia (D. Ariz.):
106 Plaintiff Motion for Partial Summary J
129 County Defendants Response
The suit against the tribal officials is before the Ninth Circuit now, materials here.
Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit Rejects Another Matheson Objection to Tribal-State Tax Compact
Here are the materials in Matheson v. Smith:
Lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Injunction against BIA in San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Membership Dispute
Here are the materials in Alto v. Black:
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Brief
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Reply Brief
An excerpt:
In an appeal from the district court’s orders denying a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction and denying motions to dismiss in an action concerning a dispute over membership in an Indian tribe, the panel affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded. The San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians’ governing documents vested the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, with ultimate authority over membership. The panel held that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin preliminarily the enforcement of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ order upholding the Band’s decision to disenroll descendants of Marcus Alto, Sr. from the Band, and that the Band was not a required party, because the claims underlying the preliminary injunction concern solely the propriety of final agency action. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the Band’s motion to dismiss the claims on which the injunction rests and the district court’s consequent refusal to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The panel remanded to allow the district court to clarify its order. Finally, the panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review on interlocutory appeal the Band’s motion to dismiss the Altos’ other claims, on which the district court expressly deferred ruling.
Additional Briefing in United States v. Zepeda — US Renews En Banc Plea
Ninth Circuit Holds Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Office/Court Has No Jurisdiction over Nonmember on Nonmember Lands
Here is the opinion in Evans v. Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Commission. The court’s syllabus:
Reversing in the district court’s denial of a motion for preliminary injunction and dismissal of an action seeking to enjoin tribal court proceedings, the panel held that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes lacked the power to regulate the land use of the plaintiff, a nonmember who owned land in fee simple within the Fort Hall Reservation.
The panel held that the plaintiff was not required to exhaust tribal remedies before bringing suit in federal court because the tribal court plainly lacked jurisdiction. The panel held that because the plaintiff was an owner of non-Indian fee land, the Tribes’ efforts to regulate him were presumptively invalid under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), and an exception for the regulation of nonmember activity that directly affects a tribe’s political integrity, economic security, health, or welfare did not apply. The panel reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Briefs and lower court materials are here.
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Asks Wash. Dept. of Revenue to Withdraw Guidance re: Chehalis Decision
Washington Dept. of Revenue Interim Guidance in Light of Chehalis v. Thurston County
Here:
Assessors — Interim Guidance 9th Circuit Court Decision — Memo Attachment
Here is the text:
Interim Guidance to County Assessors regarding the Application of the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County Board of Equalization
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Navajo Labor Jurisdiction over Window Rock Unified School District
Here are the briefs in Window Rock Unified School District v. Reeves:
Navajo Nation Labor Commission Opening Brief
Navajo Nation Supreme Court Amicus Brief
Navajo Nation Labor Commission Reply Brief
Lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Pala Disenrollment Appeal — Allen v. Smith
Alaska Seeks Supreme Court Review of Alaska Native Susbistence Rights under Katie John
Here is the petition in Alaska v. Jewell:
State of Alaska Petition and Appendix
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly held—in conflict with this Court’s decisions—that the federal reserved water rights doctrine authorizes the unprecedented federal takeover of Alaska’s navigable waters sanctioned by the 1999 Rule.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly proceeded on the premise—which also conflicts with this Court’s decisions—that ANILCA could be interpreted to federalize navigable waters at all given Congress’s silence on the Act’s application to navigable waters.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.