Materials in Lewis v. Salazar here:
12 – Appellants’ Opening Brief
24 – Secretary Salazar’s Answering Brief
26 – Tribal Defendants Answering Brief
Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Dispute between “Advantage Gamblers” and Tonto Apache Tribal Casino
Here are the materials in Pistor v. Garcia:
DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (D. Ariz.)
From the trial court order (Judge Martone):
Plaintiffs, non-Indians, describe themselves as advantage gamblers. All three gambled at the Mazatzal Hotel & Casino (“Mazatzal”) in Payson, Arizona, which is owned and operated by the Tonto Apache Tribe (“the Tribe”) and is located on tribal land. Plaintiffs each won a substantial amount of money playing some of Mazatzal’s video blackjack machines. Moving defendants are all employed by the Tribe. Hoosava is the General Manager of Mazatzal. Kaiser is employed by the Tribe as a Tribal Gaming Office Inspector. Garcia is employed by the Tribe as Chief of the Tonto Apache Police Department. On October 25, 2011, plaintiffs allege that they were seized while inside Mazatzal. Pistor and Abel were handcuffed, and all three plaintiffs were brought to private rooms and questioned. Plaintiffs were eventually released and were not charged with any crime. Defendants seized thousands of dollars in cash and casino cash redemption tickets from plaintiffs. The property has not yet been returned.
Ninth Circuit Rejects Another Challenge to Colville Tax Agreement
Update in Wandering Medicine v. McCulloch — Ninth Circuit Materials (so far) in Montana Voting Rights Case
Here:
Appellants Opposition to Motion
Appellees Motion to Dismiss Appeal
CA9 Order on Motion to Dismiss
News coverage here.
Lower court materials here.
Cert Stage Briefing Complete in New 49er’s v. Karuk Tribe
Here, from SCOTUSblog. The case is set for Conference on March 15, 2013.
Lower court materials here (case formerly captioned as Karuk Tribe of California v. USFS). Previous post here.
Thurston County Response to Chehalis Request for Judicial Notice of Federal Leasing Regs
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.