Tribes and States Sue to Block Sale and Removal of National Archives in Seattle

Here is the complaint in State of Washington v. Vought (W.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

15 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

30 Amended Complaint

32 Opposition

37 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Proposed Form of Injunctive Relief

40 Reply

News coverage:

Washington AG press release:

Indian Country Today:

Seattle Times:

Spokesman Review:

Yakama Nation press release:

Press Release_YN_OMB_Seattle Archives Lawsuit (1.4.21) (002)

Ninth Circuit Rejects Another Matheson Objection to Tribal-State Tax Compact

Here are the materials in Matheson v. Smith:

CA9 Unpublished Memorandum

Matheson Opening Brief

Washington Brief

Matheson Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Washington COA Briefs in Trust Assets Appeal

Here are the briefs in First Citizens Bank & Trust Company v. Harrison (Wash. Ct. App.):

From the reply brief:

Whether the trial court erred by ruling 25 USC § 410 exempts Indian trust income located in the Banner Bank and Fife Commercial Bank accounts from garnishment.


SCT Denied Cert in Miller v. Wright — Challenge to Puyallup Tax Agreement

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied Miller v. Wright, a challenge to the Puyallup-Washington tax agreement. Order list here.

Lower court materials here.

Miller v Wright Cert Opposition Brief


Miller v Wright Cert Opp

The petition is here. No chance for a grant. I wouldn’t have even filed an opposition….

Miller v. Wright Cert Petition


Miller v Wright Cert Petition

Questions presented:

The questions presented in this case are:
1. Whether Indian tribal immunity from suit allows the Indian tribe, a price fixing competitor, to be immune from federal anti-trust laws?
2. Whether the officials of an Indian tribe, acting beyond their authority, can be protected by tribal immunity when prospective relief is sought?
Lower court materials here.


Ninth Circuit Amends Miller v. Wright Panel Opinion

Here is the amended opinion.

Our post on the prior opinion is here.

The single amendment is to eliminate this footnote:

4. Neither in the district court nor on appeal do Miller, Lanphere, and Matheson allege a separate and distinct claim for injunctive or declaratory relief against the officials qua officials. See Maxwell, —- F.3d —-, 2012 WL 4017462, at *11. We therefore express no opinion as to the viability of such a claim against the officials themselves.

An en banc petition in the Maxwell case is currently pending.