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

News coverage:

Washington AG press release: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-announces-coalition-lawsuit-save-national-archives

Indian Country Today: https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/tribes-sue-to-stop-relocation-of-rare-documents-3wsWTPg0fka-vOAV1Uoj2g

Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/ag-ferguson-with-tribes-and-historic-groups-sues-feds-over-seattle-national-archives-closure/

Spokesman Review: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jan/04/ag-bob-ferguson-sues-to-stop-sale-of-seattle-natio/

Yakama Nation press release:

Press Release_YN_OMB_Seattle Archives Lawsuit (1.4.21) (002)

Federal Court Dismisses Fourth Suit Challenging Federal/Tribal Ownership of Lake Quinault

Here are the materials in Landreth v. United States (W.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

25 Quinault Motion to Dismiss

26 US Motion to Dismiss

27 Response to Quinault

28 Response to US

29 DCT Order

Most recent suit here.

Tribes Sue EPA over Clean Water Act Rules

Here is the complaint in Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA (D. Ariz.):

1 Complaint

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Wheeler (D. N.M.):

1 Complaint

Reflections on Oral Argument in Brackeen v. Bernhardt

IMG_9734
Four Intervening Tribes Leadership and Attorneys

On Wednesday, an en banc panel of 16 judges in the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments in Brackeen v. Bernhardt. Judges Davis and Ho were not a part of the panel. The other judges, from the left side of the bench around to the right were:

Oldham
Duncan
Willett
Higginson
Haynes
Elrod
Stewart
Smith
Owen
Jones
Wiener
Dennis
Southwick
Graves Jr.
Costa
Englehart

The rest of the information is from my notes during the hearing, and I’m sure contain some mistakes that we will see when a transcript is released.

Of the 16 judges, 5 of them asked a vast majority of the questions–more than 5 questions each. Duncan asked 19, Dennis and Jones asked 11, Smith asked 7 and Costa asked 5. The federal government received 11 questions, Navajo Nation 7, and the Four Intervening Tribes 7. Texas received 19, and the Individual Plaintiffs 16. The Four Intervening Tribes received 4 additional questions on rebuttal (totals are 25 for the pro-ICWA side before rebuttal and 36 for the anti-ICWA side).

If you are trying to follow along to the audio recording, Duncan was most concerned with commandeering and recent Supreme Court commandeering questions. He also pressed Navajo Nation closely on blood quantum. Smith was the one particularly trying to understand the “exclusive” part of plenary power, and later expressed the belief that Texas dedicates scores of social workers to each child in care. And Jones asked the questions on rebuttal that has led to the most number of texts from attorneys asking me “what the [heck]?!” (which I personally thought Adam Charnes handled admirably, given all the oxygen was completely sucked out of the courtroom in that minute by a collective intake of breath).

Dennis, the judge who wrote the lower panel opinion, was the one the plaintiffs had most difficulty hearing, and was the most supportive of the law. Costa also asked skeptical questions of the plaintiffs, and wanted to know more about redressability.

Given the silence or relative silence of so many judges, it is impossible to make any predictions about the eventual opinion. We heard very little from judges who voted against en banc review in Dollar General (the pro-tribe vote), except Dennis. Elrod and Higginson both asked one question each.

Finally, in a very unscientific scroll through Westlaw, the Fifth Circuit has taken anywhere from 3 months (Moore v. Quarterman) from the granting of en banc review to the opinion to 10 months (Alvarez v. Brownsville). The granting of en banc review of Brackeen was in 11/19, so feel free to speculate amongst yourselves when you think the opinion will come out.

IMG_9034
Déjà vu all over again

Swinomish/Quinault/Suquamish Amicus Brief in Climate Change Litigation in Washington State

Here is the brief in Aji P. v. State of Washington (Wash Ct. App.):

Tribal Amicus Brief

More details on this case here.

Federal Claims Court Dismisses Pro Se Property Owner Claims against US [and Quinault] over Lake Quinault

Here are the materials in Landreth v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

12-amended-complaint.pdf

13-chenault-motion-to-file-amicus-brief.pdf

14-dct-order-denying-chenault-amicus.pdf

15-us-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

18-quinault-motion-to-file-amicus-brief.pdf

18-1-quinault-amicus.pdf

20-us-consent-to-quinault-motion.pdf

21-response-to-us-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

30-quinault-reply.pdf

34-dct-order-denying-quinault-motion.pdf

35-us-reply-in-support-of-mtd.pdf

36-dct-order.pdf