Ninth Circuit

Here are the materials:

Opening brief is here, and lower court materials here.

Details here, from the Bustamante filing:

Respondents argue that because Mr. Bustamante has completed his sentence and been released from custody, and because Mr. Bustamante’s habeas petition challenges only the length of his sentence, his appeal should be dismissed on grounds of mootness. Upon review of Respondents’ motion and pertinent authorities, including North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244 (1971), Mr. Bustamante, by and through undersigned counsel, agrees with Respondents’ contention and does not oppose Respondents’ motion.

Ninth Circuit Declines to Review Panel Decision to Force Challengers to Native Hawaiian School Preferences to Disclose Their Names Publicly

November 8, 2010November 8, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is today’s order — with dissents (filled with outrage) from both Chief Judge Kozinski and Judge Reinhardt, as well as a concurrence signed by the three panel judges — denying en banc review in Doe v. Kamehameha Schools.

Here is the panel decision.

Ninth Circuit Opinion in SEC v. Leonard/Indigenous Global Dev. Corp.

November 3, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials (unpublished opinion):

Leonard Opening Brief

SEC Answer Brief

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Challange to Mont. SCT Decision in Unauthorized Law Practice in Blackfeet Tribal Court

November 3, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in O’Neil v. State of Montana (unpublished opinion):

O’Neil Opening Brief

Montana Answer Brief

O’Neil Late Reply Brief

Tribal Materials in Arizona Voter ID/Citizenship Case

October 27, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Yesterday, a deeply divided panel of the Ninth Circuit (which included Justice O’Connor in the majority, and Chief Judge Kozinski the dissenter) struck down the Arizona statute requiring persons to provide documentary evidence of citizenship before registering to vote. Here is the opinion in Gonzalez v. State of Arizona.

And here are the tribal materials only (there were many, many briefs):

Inter Tribal Council Opening Brief

Inter Tribal Council Reply Brief

Ninth Circuit Panel Issues Amended Order in Colville Death Penalty Case

October 26, 2010October 26, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Well, it’s complicated. Colville has not reinstated the death penalty in accordance with the Federal Death Penalty Act, which removes capital murder from the Major Crimes Act unless the tribe “reinstates” it. But apparently a split panel of the Ninth Circuit held (and holds) that federal prosecutors can still pursue the crime of capital murder under the Major Crimes Act, they just can’t impose the death penalty. And the CA9 panel majority says that therefore the 5-year statute of limitations for capital crimes is therefore waived. Interesting. Here is the opinion (and the earlier opinion).

The majority panel writes:

If we were to limit the federal statute of limitations for murder to five years when a tribe has not opted to permit imposition of the death penalty against its members under the Federal Death Penalty Act, we would in fact be limiting sovereignty by burdening the choice created by the Act. “[T]here is typically no statute of limitations for first-degree murder — for the obvious reason that it would be intolerable to let a cold-blooded murderer escape justice through the mere passage of time . . . .” United States v. Quinones, 196 F. Supp. 2d 416, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 313 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Story v. State, 721 P.2d 1020, 1026-27 (Wyo. 1986) (stating that no state has adopted a limitations period for murder). If the statute of limitations for murder were to shorten so dramatically as a consequence of a tribe’s decision not to reinstate the death penalty, tribal governments would be forced to choose between capital punishment — to which they may have religious or political objections — and justice for the most heinous of crimes.

Judge Tashima disagreed:

Continue reading →