Here:
Thurtson County Response to Motion for Judicial Notice
The motion is here.
Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Audio in Tohono O’odham Nation v. City of Glendale
Shingle Springs Finally Wins Permanent Injunction against Man Claiming to be “Chief”
Amazing story. Cribbing from another’s description of the case:
Just after news broke that Tribe’s Red Hawk Casino was about to open several years ago, Cesar Caballero began his campaign to usurp the Tribe’s established identity. There are many fascinating twist and turns to this story, including Mr. Caballero’s conviction for obstruction of mail after submitting a fraudulent change of address form to have the Tribe’s mail diverted to his address. Earlier in the case (a few years back) he filed unsuccessful counterclaims seeking relief for alleged violation of his trademarks and challenging the Tribe’s status. The court dismissed the counterclaims with prejudice.
Here are the materials:
236.1 – MPA re Summary Judgment Motion
258 – Caballero Response to Summary Judgment Motion
259 – Order Granting Summary Judgment And Entering Permanent Injunction
Chehalis Asks Ninth Circuit to Take Judicial Notice of New Interior Regulations re: Taxability of Trust Land Improvements
Here is the motion in Confederated Chehalis Tribes v. Thurston County Board of Equalization:
Chehalis Motion to Take Judicial Notice
The federal regs are here. 25 CFR 162.017 reads:
Subject only to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on the leased land, without regard to ownership of those improvements, are not subject to any fee, tax, assessment, levy or other charge imposed by any State or political subdivision of a State. Improvements may be subject to taxation by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.
Ninth Circuit Rejects Havasupai/Kaibab Paiute Challenge to Uranium Mine
Here is the opinion in Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar. From the court’s summary:
The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in an action challenging the decision to allow Denison Mines Corp. to restart mining operations at the Arizona 1 Mine. As a threshold issue, the panel held that a decision made by a prior panel of this court affirming the district court’s denial of appellants’ preliminary injunction motion did not become law of the case as to any issue. The panel held that the Bureau of Land Management did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and BLM’s own regulations, by permitting Denison Mines to restart mining operations under a plan of operations that BLM approved in 1988. The panel also held that BLM’s update of the Arizona 1 Mine reclamation bond should not be set aside. Finally, the panel held that BLM’s application of the categorical exclusion for issuance of the Robinson Wash gravel permit was not arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.
Briefs and materials here.
NYTs Article on Oravec v. Cole
Here.
An excerpt:
Two families from the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana can proceed with a lawsuit against an F.B.I. agent that accuses him of failing to properly investigate crimes against American Indians on and around the reservation, the United States Supreme Court has ruled.
Ninth Circuit materials here.
Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of Navajo Employment Preference Law against Salt River Project
Here are the materials in Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Lee (D. Ariz.):
DCT Order Granting Salt River Project Motion
Salt River Project Motion for Summary J
This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, materials here.
For more background on the Navajo Preference in Employment Act, see Howard Brown and Ray Austin’s excellent article here.
Split Ninth Circuit Orders Federal Prosecutors to Prove Federal Recognition Status of Tribes in Major Crimes Act Prosecutions…
… to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here are the materials in United States v. Zepeda:
CA9 memorandum (related opinion on other issues)
The court’s summary:
The panel reversed jury convictions under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, which provides for federal jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by Indians in Indian country.
The panel held that whether a given tribe is federally recognized, as required for jurisdiction under § 1153, is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the court; and rejected the government’s request that this court take judicial notice of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’s list of federally recognized tribes in 2008 and 2010.
The panel held that a Certificate of Enrollment in an Indian tribe, entered into evidence through the parties’ stipulation, is insufficient evidence for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is an Indian for purposes of § 1153, where the government offers no evidence that the defendant’s bloodline is derived from a federally recognized tribe.
Dissenting, Judge Watford would hold that federal recognition of an Indian tribe is a question of law for the court to resolve.
Ninth Circuit Amends Miller v. Wright Panel Opinion
Here is the amended opinion.
Our post on the prior opinion is here.
The single amendment is to eliminate this footnote:
4. Neither in the district court nor on appeal do Miller, Lanphere, and Matheson allege a separate and distinct claim for injunctive or declaratory relief against the officials qua officials. See Maxwell, —- F.3d —-, 2012 WL 4017462, at *11. We therefore express no opinion as to the viability of such a claim against the officials themselves.
An en banc petition in the Maxwell case is currently pending.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Idaho Roadless Rule (Kootenai Tribe Intervened)
Here is the opinion in Jayne v. Sherman.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.