Briefing in Mille Lacs Reservation Boundaries Case

Here are the materials in Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):

225 Tribe Motion for Summary Judgment

241 County Motion for Summary Judgment

250 State of Minnesota Amicus Brief

265-1 US Amicus Brief

Prior post here.

Federal Court Holds Mille Lacs Ojibwe Has Standing to Sue County over Reservation Boundaries

Here are the materials in Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):

149 Mille Lacs Band Motion for Summary J

164 Walsh Motion for Summary J

173 Mille Lacs Band Response

176 Walsh Response

184 County Motion for Sanctions

190 Mille Lacs Band Response to 184

194 Mille Lacs Band Reply

198 Walsh Reply

217 DCT Order

Prior posts here and here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

This case presents the question whether the State of Washington may exercise criminal jurisdiction over members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation who commit crimes on reservation land. To answer that question, we must interpret a 2014 Washington State Proclamation that retroceded—that is, gave back—“in part,” civil and criminal jurisdiction over the Yakama Nation to the United States, but retained criminal jurisdiction over matters “involving non-Indian defendants and non-Indian victims.” If “and,” as used in that sentence, is conjunctive, then the State retained jurisdiction only over criminal cases in which no party—suspects or victims—is an Indian. If, by contrast, “and” is disjunctive and should be read as “or,” then the State retained jurisdiction if any party is a non-Indian. We conclude, based on the entire context of the Proclamation, that “and” is disjunctive and must be read as “or.” We therefore affirm the district court.

Briefs here. Oral argument video here.

Discovery Dispute in Mille Lacs Reservation Boundaries Case

Here are the non-sealed materials in Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):

96 Tribe Motion to Quash

110 Tribe Opposition to Motion to Compel

130 Magistrate Report

Prior post here.

Cert Petition in McMahon v. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe

Here is the petition:

cert-petition.pdf

appendix.pdf

Questions presented:

1. Under Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901) and United States v. Title Insurance & Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472 (1924), did the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe’s failure to file a land claim under the 1851 Act extinguish any of the Tribe’s rights as to Section 36 as conveyed to the State of California for school purposes under the Enabling Act of 1853?

2. Given that this Court has found that states take title to property under the Enabling Acts subject to aboriginal title only where a preexisting treaty has preserved the aboriginal title, does the absence of any Chemehuevi Indian Tribe reservation at the time Section 36 was conveyed to the State of California under the Enabling Act of 1853 bar any claim by the Tribe or its members that Section 36 constitutes Indian country?

3. Does the Appropriation Doctrine bar any claim by the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe or its members that the 1907 Secretarial Order could transfer Section 36 to the Tribe after the property had already been conveyed to the State of California for school purposes under the Enabling Act of 1853?

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Cert Opp

Reply

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Yakama v. County Criminal Jurisdiction Appeal

Here are the briefs in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. City of Toppenish:

Opening Brief

Appellee Brief

state-amicus-brief.pdf

us-amicus-brief.pdf

reply-1.pdf

Lower court materials here.