oral argument – Page 11

Ninth Circuit Reverses Judgment Favoring Crow Nation against HUD

March 26, 2015March 26, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Crow Tribal Housing Authority v. HUD.

From the court’s syllabus:

The panel vacated the district court’s order remanding the case to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for a hearing, reversed the judgment, and remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of HUD in a case brought by the Crow Tribal Housing Authority, arising from a dispute involving Indian housing block grants made under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.

The panel held that the district court erred in ruling that HUD violated Crow Housing’s right to Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996’s notice and reporting requirements under 25 U.S.C. §§ 4161 and 4165.

Specifically, the panel concluded that HUD did not act under § 4161, and accordingly, could not have violated a hearing requirement under that section. The panel further concluded that HUD’s actions triggered the opportunity for a hearing under § 4165 when it conducted an on-site review of Crow Housing in August 2004. Finally, the panel held that because Crow Housing did not request a hearing, HUD did not violate its statutory obligation under § 4165 and did not improperly deprive Crow Housing of a hearing under the facts of the case.

Briefs and materials are here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Carsten v. Nevada Inter-Tribal Council — FMLA Claims

March 24, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Carsten Opening Brief

ITC Answer Brief

Carsten Reply Brief

Oral argument video and audio.

Lower court materials here.

Materials on Makah Indian Tribe’s Request for Determination Re Quileute and Quinault Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds in the Pacific Ocean

February 23, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

There is the potential for an enormous amount of chaos for both US v. Washington and for any Indian tribe with extant treaty rights based on the arguments going on here now. Most notably, several tribes (Quinault, Quileute, and Hoh) are claiming that the Sherrill-based equitable defenses may apply in some way to Indian treaty claims.

I find this personally horrifying and disturbing — that any tribe would claim that Sherrill and its Second Circuit progeny apply to treaty rights. Sherrill is a statute-based claim, and so are the Second Circuit cases that purport to follow its reasoning. Treaty rights are an entirely different genre.

I sincerely hope the U.S. v. Washington tribes will opt-out of federal litigation — with its potential to undercut treaty rights for tribes all over the country — and move toward an inter-tribal treaty. There is at least one proposal on the table, and tribal leaders and tribal constituents should act quickly to adopt it. These inter-tribal disputes are doing nothing now but threatening to make bad law for everyone.

Luckily, Judge Martinez did not hold that equitable defenses apply here, but who knows what will happen in the Ninth Circuit and beyond.

Here are the new materials in subproceeding 09-01 of United States v. Washington (No. 70-9213) (W.D. Wash.):

248 Makah Motion for Summary J on Equitable Defenses

251 Quinault and Quileute Motion for Summary J

267 Quinault and Quileute Response to 248 Motion

274 Makah Reply in Support of 248 Motion

275 Interested Tribes Response to 251 – Equitable Defenses

276 Hoh Tribe Response to 251

277 Makah Response to 251

279 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 251

281 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 251

283 Quileute and Quinault Motion to Define Burden of Proof

284 Interested Tribes Response to 283 — Burden of Proof

285 US Response to 283 — Burden of Proof

286 Upper Skagit Tribe Response to 283 — Burden of Proof

287 Makah Response to 283 — Burden of Proof

288 State of Washington Response to 283 — Burden of Proof

289 Quileute and Quinault Reply to 284 in Support of 283

290 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 283

296 Makah Surreply re 283

304 DCT on Motions for Summary J

306 DCT Pretrial Order

Materials in a related pending Ninth Circuit matter in subproceeding 09-01 are here.

Debate on JURIST re: NAGPRA and the Jim Thorpe Case

January 20, 2015January 20, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is Walter Olson’s post “NAGPRA, Indian Burials, and the Unquiet Grave.”

Here is Elizabeth C. Varner, Diane Penneys Edelman and Leila Amineddoleh’s “NAGPRA and Congress’s Foresight.”

H/T Pechanga.

The Third Circuit materials are here (en banc petition pending).

Third Circuit Accepts NCAI and Sen. Nighthorse Campbell Amicus Briefs in Jim Thorpe Appeal

January 5, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

ORDER (MCKEE, Chief and Circuit Judge) granting motions of the National Congress of the American Indians and Ben Nighthorse Campbell to file in support of the petition for rehearing. The Clerk is directed to file the briefs on the docket as statements in support of rehearing and circulate them to the full Court. No response by Appellant is required unless the court directs, filed. [13-2446, 13-2451] (TMK)

The en banc petition is here. The amicus briefs are here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington — Gaming Compact Dispute

December 16, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the briefs:

Tulalip Opening Brief

Samish Amicus Brief

Washington Brief

Tulalip Reply

Oral argument audio here.

Lower court materials here:

13 Tulalip Motion for Summary J

20 Washington Response

Third Circuit En Banc Petition Materials in Thorpe v. Borough of Jim Thorpe (UPDATED)

December 9, 2014December 19, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Petition for Rehearing (12-8-14)

NCAI Mtn for Leave and Proposed Brief in Support Filed 12-8-14

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell amicus brief

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell motion for leave to file amicus brief

UPDATE:

Borough Opposition to NCAI Amicus Brief

NCAI Reply in Support of Amicus Motion

Third Circuit panel materials here.

D.C. Circuit Rejects Bid by Buena Vista Rancheria to Intervene in Challenge to Trust Acquisition

December 2, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Amador County v. Dept. of Interior.

An excerpt:

In 2005, Amador County, California brought suit against the Department of Interior challenging the Secretary’s approval of a gaming compact between the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians (the “Tribe”) and the State of California. After nearly six-and-a-half years of litigation, the Tribe sought to intervene for the limited purpose of moving to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. The district court denied the motion as untimely, and this appeal followed. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Third Circuit Holds NAGPRA Does Not Require Repatriation of Jim Thorpe’s Remains

October 23, 2014October 23, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here is the opinion in Thorpe v. Borough of Jim Thorpe:

Jim Thorpe Opinion [Update — the clerk has withdrawn this version of the opinion for quality control.]

An excerpt:

Thorpe’s remains are located at their final resting place and have not been disturbed. We find that applying NAGPRA to Thorpe’s burial in the Borough is such a clearly absurd result and so contrary to Congress’s intent to protect Native American burial sites that the Borough cannot be held to the requirements imposed on a museum under these circumstances. We reverse the District Court and hold that the Borough is not a “museum” under NAGPRA for the purposes of Thorpe’s burial.

Briefs here and here. Oral argument audio here.

Lower court materials here.