Here:
Panel materials are here.
Ninth Circuit
Update in Chehalis v. Thurston County
Here are additional materials relating to a motion for clarification by the county:
Panel decision materials here.
Ninth Circuit Withdraws Zepeda Opinion
Here. The order:
The opinion in this case filed on January 18, 2013, and reported at 705 F.3d 1052 is hereby withdrawn. The opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. The court will file a new opinion in due course. As the court’s opinion is withdrawn, the government’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is moot.
Materials in this case and related cases are here.
Ninth Circuit Materials in Native Village of Point Hope v. EPA
Here:
Native Village of Point Hope Opening Brief
NANA Regional Corporation Answer Brief
Native Village of Point Hope Reply Brief
Oral argument audio here.
EPA’s statement of the issue:
Whether EPA’s approval of Alaska’s site-specific water quality criterion for total dissolved solids (“TDS”) in the Main Stem of Red Dog Creek during Arctic grayling spawning season was arbitrary or capricious where EPA based its approval on a comprehensive review of existing scientific evidence and, consistent with a recent study’s recommendation, an additional study into the impacts of TDS exposure on fertilization success in Arctic grayling.
Ninth Circuit Rejects Fort Belknap Housing Petition re: HUD Overpayments
Here are the materials in Fort Belknap Housing Authority v. Office of Public and Indian Housing (HUD):
An excerpt:
The panel dismissed a petition for review of a decision of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to withhold overpayments made to the Fort Belknap Housing Department under the federal rent-subsidy program for Indian Tribes and Tribal Designated Housing Entities.
The panel held that because the Department of Housing and Urban Development had taken no “action” pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 4161(a), it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The panel held it lacked jurisdiction because HUD neither alleged nor found that Fort Belknap failed to comply substantially with the provisions of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996; and because HUD did not impose the remedies listed in 25 U.S.C. § 4161(a)(1). The panel dismissed Fort Belknap’s petition without reaching the merits.
And:
At oral argument, HUD’s counsel suggested that Fort Belknap could raise its claims in the appropriate district court. We do not decide whether any other court has jurisdiction, as that issue is not before us, but we note that our holding does not necessarily mean Fort Belknap is without judicial recourse.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Former Chukchansi CEO for Fraud and Theft from a Tribal Gaming Establishment
Here is the opinion in United States v. Livingston. An excerpt:
The panel affirmed convictions for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Indian lands (18 U.S.C. § 1168(b)).
The panel held that the location of the gaming establishment is not an element of the offense under § 1168(b), and that the allegations in the indictment were sufficiently specific to apprise the defendant of the specific offenses with which he was charged.
The panel also held that the district court’s jury instructions correctly defined “intent to defraud,” and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting prior acts evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Here are the materials:
Lower court materials here, here, here, and here.
Jeff Livingston was also the gaming manager at Grand Traverse Band.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal
Ninth Circuit Decides Pyramid Lake Paiute v. Nevada — Water for Wetlands Appeal
Here are the materials in Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Nevada Dept. of Wildlife:
Nevada Dept. of Wildlife Opening Brief
Nevada State Engineer Opening Brief
Nevada Water Fowl Assn Opening Brief
Pyramid Lake Paiute Answer Brief
The court’s syllabus:
Affirming the district court’s judgment, the panel held that the district court correctly concluded that diversion of water for waterfowl habitat is not “irrigation” within the meaning of the federal court Alpine decree governing water rights in the Newlands Reclamation Project.
This appeal concerns applications filed by the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Nevada Waterfowl Association to transfer water rights from agricultural land in the Newlands Project to the Carson Lake and Pasture, a wildlife refuge located within the Lahontan Valley wetlands at the terminus of the Carson River. Because the applicants proposed to use the transferred water to support the growth of plants used by wildlife, they argued that the intended use of water at Carson Lake and Pasture constituted irrigation. The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and the United States protested the applications.
Determining that the Tribe had standing, the panel held that both the Alpine Decree and the Nevada water code speak of irrigation solely in the context of agriculture and distinguish such use from the application of water for recreational, aesthetic, and wildlife purposes. Therefore, the panel agreed with the district court that the State Engineer’s approval of the applications to transfer the non-consumptive use portion of the applicants’ water rights violated Administrative Provision VII of the Alpine Decree because the applications sought a change in the manner of use to a non-irrigation purpose.
Federal Court Issues Decision in Challenge to Suquamish Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 05-4 (W.D. Wash.):
193 Swinomish Motion for Partial Summary J
Subp 05-4 Dkt 242 Order Suquamish-1
Materials on subproceeding 05-3 are here.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Exclusion of Counties in Termination Case Involving Mishewal Wappo Tribe
Here is the opinion in Mishewal Wappo Tribe v. Salazar.
Excerpt:
The Counties of Napa and Sonoma (“the Counties”) appeal the district court’s revocation of their status as intervening defendants. The Counties also appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the revocation of their status as intervenors.
Briefs:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.