Preliminary Injunction Issued by Paskenta Tribal Court

Here is the order in Freeman v. Freeman (Paskenta Tribal Court):

PTCV-14-001-2014-5-29 – Preliminary Injunction Order

Materials here.

More Tribal Court Filings in Paskenta Leadership Dispute

Here are the new materials in Freeman v. Freeman (Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians Tribal Court):

PTCV-14-001 – 2014-5-27 Motion for Preliminary Injuction and Default Judgment

PTCV-14-001 – 2014-5-27 – Declaration of M Jones

PTCV-14-001 – 2014-5-27 – Second Declaration of G. Freeman

Prior posts on this issue here, here, and here.

And a related document:

4-16-14 BIA Letter re Legitimate Paskenta Tribal Council

Ninth Circuit Materials in Redding Rancheria Challenge to IGRA Section 20 Regulations

Here are the materials in Redding Rancheria v. Salazar [Jewell]:

Redding Rancheria Opening Brief

Robinson Rancheria Amicus Brief

Interior Answer Brief

Redding Rancheria Reply

Oral argument audio here.

Lower court materials here and here.

Amici Supporting Big Lagoon Rancheria’s En Banc Petition

Here:

Big Lagoon v California – 64 – US brief

Big Lagoon v California – 67-2 – NCAI USET brief

Big Lagoon v California – 68 – CILS Ltr

The en banc petition is here.

The panel materials are here.

Big Lagoon Rancheria En Banc Petition

Here:

Petition for Panel Rehearing

The panel materials are here.

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Reverses Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California

Here is today’s opinion. The court’s syllabus:

Reversing the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the State of California did not violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to negotiate in good faith for a tribal-state gaming compact with Big Lagoon Rancheria.

The panel held that a tribe must have jurisdiction over “Indian lands” in order to file suit to compel negotiations under IGRA. Specifically, the tribe must have jurisdiction over the Indian lands upon which the gaming activity is to be conducted.

The panel held that although the State’s objection to the “Indian lands” requirement could be waived because it was not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction, the State preserved this issue for review. The panel held that the parcel at issue was not Indian lands, which include lands held in trust for a tribe, because under Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ authority to take lands in trust for a tribe extends only to tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Because Big Lagoon was not such a tribe, the BIA lacked authority to purchase the parcel in trust for Big Lagoon in 1994. Accordingly, Big Lagoon could not demand negotiations to conduct gaming on the parcel, and it could not sue to compel negotiations if the State fails to negotiate in good faith.

Dissenting, Judge Rawlinson wrote that the parcel was Indian lands under IGRA because under Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008), the State could not collaterally attack the BIA’s designation of trust lands years after its administrative and legal remedies had expired.

Briefs are here.

Diné CARE Loses Suit to Force EPA to Impose New Rules on Navajo Generating Station

Here are the materials in Diné CARE v. EPA (N.D. Cal.):

40 Diné CARE Motion for Summary J

41 EPA Cross Motion

44 Salt River Project Cross Motion

55 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

Now before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Diné Care and National Parks Conservation Association (collectively “Plaintiffs”) move to have the Court issue an order requiring Defendant, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Lisa Jackson in her official capacity as administrator (collectively “EPA”), issue a final rule within one year that establishes Best Available Retrofit Technology for the Navajo Generating Station. The EPA and the intervenor-defendant Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (“Intervenor”) each cross-move for summary judgment on the basis that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ complaint under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). Having considered the parties’ pleadings and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby GRANTS the EPA’s and Intervenor’s motions for summary judgment. The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction of this citizen suit and dismisses the action.

Federal Dismisses Robison Rancheria Disenrollee Complaint without Prejudice

Here is the order in Harrison v. Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Business Council (N.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint wo Prejudice

Briefs are here.

Complaint is here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Repatriation of “La Jolla Skeletons” to Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee

Here are the briefs in White v. University of California:

White Opening Brief

Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee Answer Brief

University Answer Brief

White Reply

Lower court materials are here.

Materials in Disenrollee Challenge to Eviction from Tribal Housing at Robinson Rancheria

Here are the materials in the pending matter Harrison v. Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Business Council (N.D. Cal.):

Harrison Complaint

Robison Motion to Dismiss

Harrison Opposition

Robison Reply