Materials in Law Firm Dispute over Nisqually Representation and Privileged Document

Here are the materials in Galanda Broadman PLLC v. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP (Wash. Super. Ct.):


Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Protective Order

Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order

Surreply in Opposition to Motion for Protective Order

Surreply to Surreply on Motion for Protective Order

Order on Motion for Protective Order

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

Reply in Support of Summary Judgment

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Affirms Dismissal of Muckleshoot U&A Appeal

Here is the opinion in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes, subproceeding 17-02 of United States v. Washington.

Briefs here.

Federal Court Declines Jurisdiction over Nisqually Officials under Ex parte Young

Here are the new materials in Bell v. City of Lacey (W.D. Wash.):



Prior pleadings, including the tribe’s motion on the pleadings (docket no. 36), are here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Muckleshoot U&A Appeal [U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 17-02]


Appellants Corrected Opening Brief

Appellee Nisqually Indian Tribe Answering Brief 

Appellee Squaxin Island Tribe Brief 

Brief of Interested Party Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe 

Real Party in Interest Breif fo the Stilliguamish Tribe of Indians

Real Party in Interest Brief fo the Hoh Indian Tribe

Appellee Puyallup Tribe Brief

Jamestown et al brief

Suq Responsive Br

Reply brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 17-02 [Muckleshoot Request for U&A Determination in Puget Sound Saltwater]

Here are the materials in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes (W.D. Wash.):

25 Motion to Dismiss

27 Suquamish Motion to Dismiss

31 Muckleshoot Response

37 Reply

39 Suquamish Reply

40 DCT Order


Washington SCT Decides Five Corners Family Farmers v. State — Groundwater Allocation Case

Here is the majority and here is the dissent.

Here is the tribal amicus brief.

Split D.C. Circuit Grants Attorney Fees to Tribal Intervenors in EPA Mercury Rule Case (New Jersey v. EPA)

Here is the opinion. And the briefs:

Tribal Motion for Atty Fees

EPA Opposition

Tribal Reply

The underlying merits decision from the D.C. Circuit vacating a Bush-era EPA mercury rule is here. BLT coverage is here.

Here are the intervening tribes and organizations:

Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Lummi Nation, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, National Congress of American Indians, Nisqually Tribe, and Swinomish Indian Tribe Community