Here is the opinion in United States v. Other Medicine (opinion here).
Ninth Circuit
Colusa Ninth Circuit Briefing
This case might be sitting around for a while, so to tide you over….
Picayune Rancheria Answering Brief
Final En Banc Opinion in Samish Effort to Reopen U.S. v. Washington
Here.
Equal Protection Challenge to Major Crimes Act Fails
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.)
Ninth Circuit Panel Issues New Opinion in Upper Skagit v. Washington
Here is the new opinion, granting rehearing and denying the en banc motion as moot.
The earlier opinion and materials are here.
Ninth Circuit Declines Jurisdiction over Pechanga Disenrollments
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
Ninth Circuit Sitting En Banc Denies Samish Tribe’s Motion to Reopen U.S. v. Washington
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Counterclaims against Kalispel Tribe
Here is the opinion in Kalispel Tribe v. Spokane Raceway Park (unpublished opinion).
An excerpt:
We need not decide whether the Tribe waived its immunity to Orville Moe’s counterclaim for contract damages as a third-party beneficiary, because Moe failed to present a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Neither the Joint Venture Agreement nor any other document specified the amount of compensation board members were to receive or how that amount was to be determined. Given the lack of details in the agreement, Moe had to produce evidence of what compensation was due and that the Tribe was responsible for that compensation. He failed to do so.
We need not decide whether the Tribe waived its immunity to Orville Moe’scounterclaim for contract damages as a third-party beneficiary, because Moe failedto present a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324(1986). Neither the Joint Venture Agreement nor any other document specified theamount of compensation board members were to receive or how that amount wasto be determined. Given the lack of details in the agreement, Moe had to produceevidence of what compensation was due and that the Tribe was responsible for thatcompensation. He failed to do so.
Ninth Circuit Decides QTA Case; Holds FTCA May Apply
The Ninth Circuit recently decided Robinson v. United States (Robinson v US CA9 Opinion), where the court held that the Quiet Title Act does not foreclose litigation over an easement running across Indian trust lands.
Here are the materials:
Ninth Circuit Decides Federal Common Law Indian Lands Case
Here is the opinion in U.S. v. Milner, which involves non-Indian shore defense structures interfering with the treaty rights of the Lummi Tribe. The U.S. charged the landowners with trespass.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.