Here:
Oral argument audio here.
Lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit
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.
“Advantage Gamblers” Civil Rights Suit against State and County Officials Continues
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 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
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.