Here is the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Rincon Band v. Schwarzeneggar (over a dissent).
Only some of the materials are available (since this case is so old, and CA9 only recently joined the 21st century):
[Picayune Amicus Brief unavailable]
California Response to Picayune Amicus Brief
Here are the lower court briefs and materials.
Judge William Canby’s Indian law-related tribute to Judge Betty Fletcher appears in the Washington Law Review. Here is the article:
Here are the materials:
Government Brief in US v Maggi
An excerpt:
Gordon Mann and Shane Maggi appeal from unrelated convictions on the same basis, namely that they are not “Indians” for purposes of prosecution under the Major Crimes Act. Because there is no evidence that Mann has any blood from a federally recognized Indian tribe, his conviction must be vacated. Maggi’s documented blood from a federally recognized tribe is scant-1/64. However, we do not decide the novel question whether Maggi’s Indian blood degree is adequate; rather, because Maggi lacks sufficient government or tribal recognition as an Indian, his conviction must also be vacated. In light of this disposition, we need not consider Maggi’s additional challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment and the reasonableness of the sentence.
The real question here is whether the government thinks this is the right vehicle to test the Ninth Circuit on the means by which it defines “Indian” under the Major Crimes Act. I’d say definitely not Mann (with no Indian blood from a federally recognized tribe), but maybe Maggi (still only 1/64 blood from a federally recognized tribe). I bet they wait for another case (assuming they want one at all).
Here is the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this latest opinion in the long-running challenge to the school’s admissions preference toward Native Hawaiians.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Other Medicine (opinion here).
This case might be sitting around for a while, so to tide you over….
Picayune Rancheria Answering Brief
Here.
Here is the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum opinion in United States v. Lyons.
An excerpt:
Lyons contends that the mandatory minimum sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) unconstitutionally violates his right to equal protection. This contention fails because § 2241(c) does not discriminate against Native Americans, either on its face or as applied. See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985); see also Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 241 (1976). Any disproportionate impact § 2241 has on Native Americans simply reflects the different treatment of criminals under the Major Crimes Act who commit crimes in a federal enclave. See United States v. Lemay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 645, 648-49 (1977) (holding that federal legislation, although relating to Indian tribes, is not based upon impermissible racial classifications; and that it is of no consequence that the federal scheme differs from a state criminal code.)
Here is the new opinion, granting rehearing and denying the en banc motion as moot.
The earlier opinion and materials are here.
Here is the opinion in Jeffredo v. Macarro. There was a dissent (by a district court judge sitting by designation), however, which seemed to focus on the apparent “greed” of the Pechanga people in disenrolling tribal members.
Here are the briefs:
An excerpt from the majority: Continue reading
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.