Brurud v. BIA [Eastern Oklahoma Regional Director]

Here is the district court opinion in Brurud v. Eastern Oklahoma Regional Director, BIA, affirming a fine against a user of a BIA road — nd-okla-dct-opinion

From the opinion:

This appeal stems from a disagreement regarding the repair and maintenance of a road in Osage County. The petitioner Clark L. Brurud (“Brurud”), through his oil company Stockbridge Energy, LLC, operates oil wells on the property where the road is located.

***

The Superintendent sent a letter to Brurud on August 2, 2001, ordering him “to completely repair all roads used by [Brurud and his] staff. . . before August 10, 2001” and “to keep all [the] roads in good repair.” The Superintendent issued another letter on August 10, 2001, stating that Brurud had “made many improvements” to the roads but “still failed to repair a section of the road.” Because Brurud did not comply with the Superintendent’s orders, he was assessed a fine on August 10, 2001 of $ 25.00 per day until he completed the work. The Superintendent stated that he would consider increasing the fine if the work was not finished by August 17, 2001. The Superintendent classified the fine as a penalty permitted by 25 C.F.R. § 226.42 and notified Brurud that the decision was appealable to the Regional Director in accordance with 25 C.F.R. § 2.

Here are the briefs:

brurud-brief

bia-response-brief

And here is the IBIA decision being appealed.

Wagoner County Rural Water Dist. v. Cherokee Nation Dismissed

The Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed the Cherokee Nation as a party from this lawsuit — Wagoner v. United States — on the grounds that the McCarran Amendment did not abrograte tribal sovereign immunity.  The case is ongoing with the rest of the defendants.

Complaint

Cherokee Nation Motion to Dismiss

Wagoner Response Brief

DCT Order

Quapaw v. Blue Tee & United States (Tar Creek Mine Superfund)

The Quapaw Tribe brought suit against mining companies and the United States over the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The private defendants have been successful in having the tribe’s claims for medical monitoring of tribal members dismissed on the grounds that the tribe didn’t have authority under the parens patriae doctrine to bring those claims. Other claims are pending, as is the United States’ motion for summary judgment.

A description of the mine from the recent district court order is here:

Continue reading

Osage Nation v. Oklahoma – CA10

The Osage Nation sued the State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Tax Commission officials seeking an injunction against the collection of state income taxes against Osage members in Osage Indian Country. The district court denied the state’s Eleventh Amendment motion to dismiss. The CA10 reversed as to the State, but very grudgingly affirmed as to the officials, relying on Ex parte Young.

Continue reading