Federal Court Rejects Individual Indian’s Effort to Block Pipeline

Here are the materials in Northern Natural Gas Company v. 80 Acres of Land in Thurston County, Neb. (D. Neb.):

51 Soloman MTD

53 Northern MSJ

56 Northern Opposition to 51

57 Northern Reply

58 DCt Order

Prior post here.

Federal Court Declines to Suppress Statement Made by Habitual D.V. Defendant Represented by Tribal Lay Advocate

Here are the materials in United States v. Freemont (D. Neb.):

45 motion to suppress

46 response

58 magistrate report

59 objection

63 dct order

Nebraska v. Parker Background Materials

Here are the materials we’ve collected on Nebraska v. Parker.

Supreme Court Merits Briefs

Nebraska Opening Brief

Omaha Tribal Council Brief

US Brief

Merits Stage Amicus Briefs

Village of Hobart Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

Scholars Brief

Cert Stage Briefs

State of Nebraska v Parker cert petition

United States Cert Opp Brief

Eighth Circuit Materials

CA8 Opinion

Nebraska Opening Brief

Tribe Brief

US Brief

Nebraska Reply Brief

District Court Materials

The 2nd amended complaint is here: Complaint

The tribal motion to dismiss is here: Motion to Dismiss

The opposition is here: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

The reply is here: Reply Brief

The court’s stay order and opinion is here: DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order Granting Nebraska Motion to Intervene

Nebraska Motion to Intervene

Opposition to Motion to Intervene

Nebraska Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene

118 Village of Pender Brief

114 Omaha Tribe Brief

127 Federal Brief

126 Nebraska Brief

134 Nebraska Response

135 US Response

136 Village of Pender Response

138 Omaha Tribe Response

140 Opinion

Tribal Court

Village of Pender v Morris — Omaha Tribal Court

United States Cert Opposition Brief in Nebraska v. Parker


US Cert Opp Brief

Cert petition and link to lower court materials here.

State of Nebraska v. Parker Cert Petition


State of Nebraska v Parker cert petition

Questions presented:

In Solem v. Bartlett, the Court articulated a three-part analysis designed to evaluate whether a surplus land act may have resulted in a diminishment of a federal Indian reservation. See 465 U.S. 463, 470-72 (1984). The Court found that the “statutory language used to open the Indian lands,” “events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act,” and “events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act” are all relevant to determining whether diminishment has occurred.

The questions presented by the petition are:

1. Whether ambiguous evidence concerning the first two Solem factors necessarily forecloses any possibility that diminishment could be found on a de facto basis.

2. Whether the original boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation were diminished following passage of the Act of August 7, 1882.

Lower court materials here.

Omaha Tribe Attorney Job Posting



POSITION                  :           Assistant Attorney General

SALARY                     :           Negotiable

SUPERVISOR                        :           Attorney General

OPENING DATE       :           January 9th, 2015

CLOSING DATE       :           Until Filled

LOCATION               :           Tribal Administration Building


SUMMARY: The Assistant Attorney General of the Omaha Tribe provides legal advice, representation, assistance and support to tribal government and its departments and enterprises. The Assistant Attorney General, under the direction and supervision of the Attorney General, represents the Tribe in all aspects of tribal government, including but not limited to, contracts, employment and human resources, law enforcement, Tribal Code development, application of federal laws relating to Tribal agencies and enterprises, federal-state jurisdictional issues, taxation issues, economic issues, hunting and fishing rights, tribal environmental and natural resource law and policy, housing and land issues, social services and enrollment issues.


  Continue reading

Eighth Circuit Rules Omaha Indian Reservation Not Diminished

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

Based upon the record evidence, the district court in this matter has done just that–accurately discerned the contemporaneous intent and understanding of the 1882 Act. The court carefully reviewed the relevant legislative history, contemporary historical context, subsequent congressional and administrative references to the reservation, and demographic trends, and did so in such a fashion that any additional analysis would only be unnecessary surplus. Ever mindful to “resolve any ambiguities in favor of the Indians,” there is nothing in this case to overcome the “presumption in favor of the continued existence” of the Omaha Indian Reservation. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. at 344 (quotation omitted); Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 985, 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here.


Omaha Tribe Judge and Prosecutor Postings

Reposting upon request:


POSITION                           :                   Chief Tribal Judge

SALARY                               :                   Negotiable

OPENING DATE                 :                   September 02, 2014

CLOSING DATE                  :                   Until Filled

LOCATION                          :                   Omaha Tribal Court

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska

Macy, NE  68039

Continue reading