Ninth Circuit

Chehalis Tribe Prevails in Great Wolf Lodge Tax Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

Here is the opinion.

The court’s summary:

Reversing the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that state and local governments lack the power to tax permanent improvements built on non-reservation land owned by the United States and held in trust for an Indian tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465.

The panel held that pursuant to Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973), the exemption of trust lands from state and local taxation under § 465 extends to permanent improvements on such lands. The panel concluded that the fact that the improvements were owned by a limited liability company, rather than by the tribe itself, was irrelevant, as was the question whether the improvements constituted personal property under state law.

Briefs here.

Oral argument audio here.

Judicial notice materials re: new federal leasing regs are here.

Answer Brief in EXC, Inc. v. Jensen

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

EXC Answer Brief

Opening briefs are here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction for Destroying Nez Perce Pictographs

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion n United States v. Bernal.

News coverage and pics here.

Ninth Circuit Reverses Manslaughter Conviction on Colville for Improper Jury Instruction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Garcia.

The Hill: Indian Voting Rights Case Could Decide Control of Senate in 2015

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

Carole Goldberg, a professor and vice chancellor at UCLA’s School of Law who has dealt extensively with Native American legal rights, said discrimination is widespread in many states with Native populations.

“There are persistent patterns where states have criminal jurisdiction on reservations and the counties that exercise this jurisdiction locate their facilities and services in a place convenient for the non-Native population and not the Native populations,” said Goldberg, who has donated to multiple Democratic candidates.

Tonasket v. Sargent Cert Stage Reply Brief

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Tonasket v Sargent Cert Stage Reply

Ninth Circuit Issues Another Superceding Opinion in Gila River Indian Community v. United States

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Gila River v US Superceding Opinion July 9 2013

Prior post here.

Federal Cert Opposition Brief in Native Village of Eyak Aboriginal Rights Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

USA Cert Opp

The petition and links to other materials is here.

Ninth Circuit Partially Reverses Conviction for Theft from Fort Peck Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in United States v. White Eagle.

The court’s summary:

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part a criminal judgment in a case arising out of the involvement by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent at the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in a scheme to obtain money from a tribal credit program.

Reversing convictions on counts charging conspiracy to convert tribal credit program proceeds (18 U.S.C. § 371) and theft and conversion from an Indian Tribal Organization (18 U.S.C. §§ 1163, 2), the panel held that the government’s misapplication theory, predicated at best on an employer directive and a civil regulation, cannot support a conviction; and that the government’s embezzlement and conversion theories also fail because the defendant never controlled or had custody of the funds that she later borrowed.

Affirming a bribery conviction (18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)), the panel held that a jury could easily infer a quid pro quo and had ample evidence to conclude that the defendant’s actions were “corrupt.”

Because the government did not show that the defendant violated a specific duty to report credit program fraud, the panel reversed her conviction of concealment of public corruption (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1)).

And the briefs:

White Eagle Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

White Eagle Reply Brief

Ninth Circuit Affirms Katie John Subsistence Rights Ruling

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here is the opinion.

And the court’s syllabus:

The panel affirmed the district court’s decisions upholding the 1999 Final Rules promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to implement part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act concerning subsistence fishing and hunting rights.

In Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Katie John I”), the court held that, because Congress included subsistence fishing in Title VIII, the Act applied to some of Alaska’s navigable waters. The 1999 Rules identified which navigable waters within Alaska constituted “public lands” under Title VIII of the Act, which provides a priority to rural Alaska residents for subsistence hunting and fishing on such lands.

As threshold issues, the panel held that the Secretaries appropriately used notice-and-comment rulemaking, rather than adjudication, to identify whose waters are “public lands” for the purpose of determining the scope of the Act’s rural subsistence policy; and that in construing the term “public lands,” the Secretaries were entitled to “some deference.” The panel concluded that, in the 1999 Rules, the Secretaries applied Katie John I and the federal reserved water rights doctrine in a principled manner. The panel held that it was reasonable for the Secretaries to decide that: the “public lands” subject to the Act’s rural subsistence priority included the waters within and adjacent to federal reservations; and reserved water rights for Alaska Native Settlement allotments were best determined on a case-by-case basis.

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials are here.