Here are the briefs:
Oral argument video here.
Lower court materials here.
oral argument
Ninth Circuit Oral Argument in Tohono O’Odham Nation v. Arizona
Ed Gehres Dollar General Post-Argument Analysis
The best line (from a very good analysis):
The outcome of this case is tough to call after the argument. It looks to be a case that may be decided on a tight vote. But one thing is absolutely certain. Regardless of the outcome, sophisticated tribes and businesses will spend increasing amounts of energy at the bargaining table fashioning partnerships where consents to applicable law and forum are clear and express.
Nebraska v. Parker Oral Argument Scheduled for January 20, 2016
Here is the Supreme Court’s January sitting schedule.
Nebraska v. Parker briefs and materials are here.
Oral Argument Transcript in Menominee Indian Tribe v. United States
Ninth Circuit Audio and Video in United States v. Washington Culverts Appeal
Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Audio in Oklevueha Native American Church v. Lynch
SCOTUS Schedules Oral Argument in Menominee (Dec. 1) and Dollar General (Dec. 7)
Here.
S’Klallam Tribes Prevail over Lummi in U.S. v. Washington U&A Subproceeding
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 11-2 (W.D. Wash.):
164 Jamestown and Port Gamble Motion
176 Jamestown and Port Gamble Response
186 Jamestown and Port Gamble Reply
This matter is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, materials here.
Ninth Circuit Sitting En Banc Rules in Favor of Big Lagoon Rancheria in Gaming Dispute with California
Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California:
From the court’s syllabus:
The en banc court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of a tribe that alleged that the State of California had failed to negotiate in good faith for a gaming compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for Class III gaming on a parcel of land taken into trust for the tribe by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Rejecting California’s argument that the tribe lacked standing to compel it to negotiate in good faith under the IGRA, the en banc court held that the State’s argument amounted to an improper collateral attack on the BIA’s decisions to take the parcel of land into trust and to designate the tribe as a federally recognized Indian tribe. The en banc court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a continuance for additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
The en banc court dismissed the tribe’s cross-appeal as moot.
Links to oral argument and briefs here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.