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.

Mille Lacs Ojibwe Law Enforcement Suit against Mille Lacs County

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

1 Complaint

17 County Answer + Counterclaim

27 MTD Counterclaim

35 Response

38 Reply

46 DCT Order Dismissing Counterclaims

72 Magistrate Letter

73 Objection to Letter

76 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Partially Reinstates Section 1983 Claim against San Bernardino County Law Enforcement

Here is the opinion in Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon.

An excerpt:

It is undisputed that the Sheriff cannot enforce regulatory traffic laws in “Indian country.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 28 U.S.C. § 1360. “Indian country” includes, but is not limited to, land within the boundaries of a reservation. 18 U.S.C. § 1151. The issues for decision today are (1) whether the individual Tribe members and the Tribe can challenge the citations through a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action; and, if so, (2) whether Section 36 is Indian country. We hold that the individual plaintiffs, but not the Tribe, can challenge the citations under § 1983. And, we conclude that all the citations occurred within Indian country. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint as to the individuals but affirm the judgment as to the Tribe.

Briefs here.

Yakama Nation Prevails over Klickitat County over Indian Country Fireworks Sales

Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Klickitat County (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

3 Motion for TRO

4 Motion to Expedite

8 County Response

10 DCT Order Granting TRO

21 Tribe Motion for Summary Judgment

23 County Response

24 Reply

29 DCT Order