Ninth Circuit – Page 79

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.

Ninth Circuit Grants Rehearing En Banc in Karuk Tribe v. USFS

September 12, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the order.

Here are the materials “en” the en banc petition stage:

Karuk En Banc Petition

Pacific Coast Federation Amicus Brief

USFS Opposition

And the panel materials are here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction (Out of Yakama)

August 18, 2011August 15, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Gomez.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Tribal Court Consecutive Sentencing under ICRA

August 17, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Miranda v. Anchando:

Miranda CA9 Decision

The briefs are here and here and here and here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Indian Country Crimes Act Conviction (Out of Montana)

August 17, 2011August 15, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. White.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction (2d Degree Murder) Out of Montana

August 14, 2011August 12, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Goodbear.

Ninth Circuit Holds in Favor of Blue Lake Rancheria in FUTA Case

August 12, 2011August 11, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the opinion in Blue Lake Rancheria v. United States.

And the briefs:

Blue Lake Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

Blue Lake Reply

And a link to the lower court decision, now reversed.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Federal Court Jurisdiction in State Law, Nonmember Claims over Tribal Allotment

August 5, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas Co.

Here is an excerpt:

In this appeal, we consider whether federal jurisdiction exists over a lawsuit between two Montana corporations alleging state law claims arising from a dispute over lands held by the United States in trust for various Indian allottees. We conclude that federal jurisdiction does not extend to the claims, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Another excerpt:

The district court properly dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We need not—and do not—reach any other issues raised by the parties, including exhaustion of tribal remedies. We note, though, that our holding does not preclude K2 from seeking relief in Blackfeet Tribal Court. See, e.g., Longie, 400 F.3d at 591. “Indeed, there may be circumstances in which a nonmember plaintiff may have no forum other than the tribal courts in which to bring his claims.” Smith v. Salish Kootenai Coll., 434 F.3d 1127, 1140 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).

And here are the briefs:

Continue reading →