Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Denies Fourth Amendment Challenge to Search on Crow Reservation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Littlebird.

An excerpt:

More importantly, significant intervening circumstances exist to sufficiently purge the taint of the illegal stop. First, prior to the interview, Littlebird was arraigned in the Crow Tribal Court and received appointed counsel. Second, the record reflects that Littlebird himself likely initiated the interview with the investigating officers. Third, before the interview he spoke with his Tribal counsel—a crucial factor in attenuation. United States v. Wellins, 654 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1981). And finally, his counsel was present during the entire interview.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Vacature of Interior’s Rule Delisting Grizzly Bear as Endangered under ESA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is yesterday’s opinion in Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen (USFWS).

Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction in U.S. v. Has the Eagle

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion.

Ninth Circuit Decides Indian Status Case Under Major Crimes Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

I’m still trying to understand how a reasonable jury of non-Indians can decided beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is an “Indian” under the Major Crimes Act. 🙂

Here are the materials in United States v. LaBuff:

LaBuff CA9 Opinion

LaBuff Opening Brief

US Answer Brief — LaBuff

LaBuff Reply

The court originally decided this case without publishing the opinion, but the government successfully petitioned the court to published it. Here are those materials. A cert petition is pending (docket no. 11-6168, definitely one to watch!):

US Request to Publish

LaBuff Opposition

Update with additional Ninth Circuit materials:

Doc 27 Objection filed October 18, 2011

 

 

Audio of Oral Argument in Summit Lake/Center for Biological Diversity v. BLM

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Briefs are here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction Arising out of Search at Tribal Detention Facility

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Bear.

Ninth Circuit Dismisses James Parks’ Discrimination Complaint against Tulalip

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Parks v. Tulalip Casino Resort.

Lower court materials are here.

Audio and Visual Links to En Banc Oral Argument in Native Village of Eyak v. Locke

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the audio link. And here is the video link.

Here are the briefs:

Eyak Opening Brief

Commerce Answer Brief

Eyak Reply

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Summit Lake Tribe v. BLM (Ruby Pipeline Project)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Argument is tomorrow….

Here are the briefs:

Enviro Groups Opening Brief

Coalition of Local Governments Opening Brief

Summit Lake Opening Brief

Fort Bidwell Opening Brief

Federal Response Brief

Enviro Groups Reply

Summit Lake Reply

Fort Bidwell Reply

Ninth Circuit Rejects Yakama Indian Nation Challenge to Washington Taxes: “Economic Reality” Continues to Be Foreclosed in Indian Tax Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s opinion in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation v. Gregoire.

Here are the briefs (lower court materials here):

Opening Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant

Washington Answer Brief

Yakama Indian Nation Reply

An excerpt from the majority:

In 1978, a three-judge district court held that the legal incidence of the Washington cigarette tax did not fall on the Tribes. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation v. Washington, 446 F. Supp. 1339 (E.D. Wash. 1978). In 1980, the Supreme Court agreed with the three-judge court and upheld the validity of Washington’s cigarette tax and its requirement that tribal retailers collect the tax from nonIndian cigarette purchasers. Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 159-61 (1980). Although some elements of Washington’s cigarette tax law have been modified over the past thirty years, we conclude, as did the district court in awarding summary judgment to the State, that none of those changes has materially altered the legal incidence of the cigarette tax approved of in Colville, and we affirm.

And from District Judge Guilford’s concurrence:

Indians in the Tribes of the Yakama Nation might well wonder how the analysis of what courts call “legal incidence” can be done without reviewing the economic reality of the tax burden on them. And here, a review of these economic realities likely would reveal that the tax at issue imposes an economic burden on Indians in the Yakama Nation. But the law requires an analysis through a prism that blocks economic reality. Thus, following Supreme Court authority, without the guidance of economic reality, I must concur with the majority’s opinion. Apart from economic reality, the provisions of the Revised Code of Washington §§ 82.24 et seq. are not materially different from those upheld in Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 (1980), and they follow established principles of Indian tax immunity. Thus, I concur in the judgment.