In Texas v. Zinke, the ICWA case in the northern district of Texas, the district court judge denied the four intervening defendant tribes’ motion to stay the decision. There has been no stay request filed in the Fifth Circuit nor a notice of appeal.
Navajo Nation filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of appeal.
Statement from Partnership for Native Children explaining the stay is here.
There were some thirty entries on the Texas v. Zinke docket this month. Relevant documents are on the case page.
Since our last update, the feds filed another motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ seperated into private and state parties for briefing–so the state plaintiffs have filed one brief, and the individual plaintiffs filed another (up to 70 pages each). Both, however, filed a combined opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.
Ohio and Goldwater have filed amicus briefs on the opposition to the motion to dismiss.
Navajo Nation motioned to intervene for the purpose of a Rule 19 dismissal.
The federal government and the plaintiffs are going back and forth on the scheduling of additional briefing, but there are no orders yet.
Here.
Download Court’s letter opinion in re: Schuyler v. Unsworth & Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Thurston County Cause No. 14-2-02373-9 here.
A member of the Upper Skagit Tribe filed an action in Superior Court for declaratory relief on certain tribal hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Point Elliot. However, the Court held that the case affects the rights of the Tribe and therefore the case must be dismissed if it cannot be joined within 90 days.
Here are the materials in Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate v. Jewell (D.C. District Court):
There is the potential for an enormous amount of chaos for both US v. Washington and for any Indian tribe with extant treaty rights based on the arguments going on here now. Most notably, several tribes (Quinault, Quileute, and Hoh) are claiming that the Sherrill-based equitable defenses may apply in some way to Indian treaty claims.
I find this personally horrifying and disturbing — that any tribe would claim that Sherrill and its Second Circuit progeny apply to treaty rights. Sherrill is a statute-based claim, and so are the Second Circuit cases that purport to follow its reasoning. Treaty rights are an entirely different genre.
I sincerely hope the U.S. v. Washington tribes will opt-out of federal litigation — with its potential to undercut treaty rights for tribes all over the country — and move toward an inter-tribal treaty. There is at least one proposal on the table, and tribal leaders and tribal constituents should act quickly to adopt it. These inter-tribal disputes are doing nothing now but threatening to make bad law for everyone.
Luckily, Judge Martinez did not hold that equitable defenses apply here, but who knows what will happen in the Ninth Circuit and beyond.
Here are the new materials in subproceeding 09-01 of United States v. Washington (No. 70-9213) (W.D. Wash.):
248 Makah Motion for Summary J on Equitable Defenses
251 Quinault and Quileute Motion for Summary J
267 Quinault and Quileute Response to 248 Motion
274 Makah Reply in Support of 248 Motion
275 Interested Tribes Response to 251 – Equitable Defenses
279 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 251
281 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 251
283 Quileute and Quinault Motion to Define Burden of Proof
284 Interested Tribes Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
285 US Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
286 Upper Skagit Tribe Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
287 Makah Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
288 State of Washington Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
289 Quileute and Quinault Reply to 284 in Support of 283
290 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 283
304 DCT on Motions for Summary J
Materials in a related pending Ninth Circuit matter in subproceeding 09-01 are here.
Here are the briefs in United States v. Washington subproceeding 09-1:
Quinault & Quileute Tribes Opening Brief
Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes Answer Brief
Here are the briefs in State v. Shale (Wash. App.):
UPDATE (additional briefs):
Appellant’s Supplemental Brief
State’s Response to Appellant’s Supplemental Brief
Appellant’s Supplemental Reply Brief
Prosecuting Attorneys Amicus Brief
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 09-1 (W.D. Wash.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.