Ninth Circuit – Page 90

U.S. v. Maggi — Ninth Circuit Further Refines Who is an “Indian” under the Major Crimes Act

March 17, 2010March 17, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials:

CA9 Opinion

Maggi Opening Brief

Government Brief in US v Maggi

Maggi Reply Brief

Mann Opening Brief

Government Brief in US v Mann

Mann Reply Brief

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).

Doe v. Kamehameha Schools — Plaintiffs Must Reveal Identity

March 3, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction

February 27, 2010February 28, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Other Medicine (opinion here).

Final En Banc Opinion in Samish Effort to Reopen U.S. v. Washington

January 28, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Equal Protection Challenge to Major Crimes Act Fails

January 28, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

January 6, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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

December 23, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

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:

Jeffredo Opening Brief

Macarro Answering Brief

Jeffredo Reply Brief

An excerpt from the majority: Continue reading →

Ninth Circuit Sitting En Banc Denies Samish Tribe’s Motion to Reopen U.S. v. Washington

December 11, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion, per Judge Canby — En Banc Opinion

Here are the materials.

Thanks to A.S.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Counterclaims against Kalispel Tribe

December 9, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.