Here is the opinion in Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Yellen. Long story short, Shawnee settled (I think) so they’re out, Miccosukee is out because their challenge is moot, and Prairie Band gets a remand ‘cuz the gummint’s got some ‘splaining to do. No zhoonya for tribal interests here, though the billables keep coming.
Briefs:
Lower court materials here (I think).
Here are the materials in Shawnee Tribe v. Yellen (D.D.C.):
70 Tribes Motion for Summary J
74 DCT Order Denying Injunction
88 Amended Tribal Motion for Summary J
91 US Cross-Motion for Summary J
93 Tribal Reply in Support of 88
95 Federal Reply in Support of 91
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in In re McDonald (D. Kan. Bkrcy.):
47 Order Sustaining Objections
An excerpt:
Debtors, William and Bonnie McDonald and Kliffton and Jeanette Scott, have filed chapter 13 plans that do not propose to pay any amount to satisfy the best interest of the creditors test of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4) with regard to per capita payments they receive from the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Indian Tribe (hereinafter “Prairie Band” or the “Tribe”). Building on governing precedent, the Court concludes that despite changes to the Prairie Band Per Capita Ordinance and Tribal Code since it last ruled on these issues, the per capita payments remain property of the respective chapter 13 estates, and the Debtors’ plans have thus failed to satisfy the best interest of the creditors test with respect to this contingent, unliquidated property.
Debtors William and Bonnie McDonald also seek to exempt the per capita payments from the bankruptcy estate by arguing they are exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(A) as “local law that is applicable . . . at the place in which the debtor’s domicile has been located for the 730 days immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition.” The McDonalds have stipulated that their domicile is in Topeka, Kansas, however, and they are not domiciled on Prairie Band land. As a result, § 522(b)(3)(A)’s exemption based on “local law” is not applicable. The McDonalds’ other exemption arguments likewise fail.
As a result of the conclusions discussed more fully herein, the Court sustains the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objections to confirmation and objections to exemption in each case.
Here is the opinion in Rodewald v. Kansas Dept. of Kansas.
From the court’s opinion:
Jacob C. Rodewald appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDR), upholding the suspension of Rodewald’s Kansas driver’s license. The basis for the suspension was K.S.A. 8-1567a, which prohibits any person less than 21 years of age from operating a vehicle in this state with a breath or blood alcohol content (BAC) of .02 or greater and which provides for a driver’s license suspension if the test results are greater than .02, but less than .08. Rodewald contends that because he is an enrolled member of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation and was operating a vehicle on the reservation when stopped by a tribal officer, the tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction over any civil matter arising from the incident, and the KDR acted outside the scope of its authority. We agree. The grant of summary judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the district court with directions to order the reinstatement of Rodewald’s driver’s license.
Here: In re Howley Order after Motion to Amend
Earlier materials in the same proceeding are here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Johnson v. Pottawatomie Tribal Police Dept. See footnote 1 for an explanation of the caption.
Lower court opinion here.
Here are the materials in In re Howley (D. Kan. Bkrtcy.):
Mostly.
Here is the slip opinion in Johnson v. Pottawatomie Tribal Police Dept. (D. Kan.): Johnson v Pottawatomi Tribal Police
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.