Washington COA Rejects Makah Challenge to State Land Exchange (and Three Tribes’ Effort to Stop the Whole Thing)

Here are the materials in Makah Indian Tribe v. Commissioner of Public Lands (Wash. Ct. App.):

D2 54945-0-II Unpublished Opinion

Makah Reply

State Response to Hoh-Quiluete-Quinault Amicus Brief

Makah Answer to Hoh-Quiluete-Quinault Amicus Brief

[missing from the court’s website are the initial briefs of the tribe and state, and the Hoh-Quiluete-Quinault amicus brief]

An excerpt:

The Makah Indian Tribe appeals the superior court’s order denying a constitutional writ to block a land exchange proposed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and approved by the Board of Natural Resources. The land exchange, called the “Peninsula Exchange,” would exchange state forestlands with forestlands owned by a private timber company, Merrill & Ring. The Peninsula Exchange parcels border tribal lands of a number of Indian tribes, including the Makah, the Hoh, the Quileute, and the Quinault. The Makah argue that DNR violated (1) the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) by failing to conduct a SEPA environmental review prior to approval of the proposal and (2) the public lands management statute, Title 79 RCW, by insufficiently addressing the Makah’s concerns.
The Hoh, Quileute, and Quinault Tribes (the Amici Tribes) filed a joint amicus curiae brief requesting dismissal under CR 19, arguing that they are necessary and indispensable parties who cannot be joined due to their sovereign immunity. The Amici Tribes claim that the Peninsula Exchange parcels are part of their respective treaty hunting areas. The Makah argue that the Amici Tribes are not necessary and indispensable parties under CR 19 because this appeal can be decided without a determination of treaty rights of various tribes as the Makah’s claims are procedural challenges to DNR’s Peninsula Exchange.
Because we resolve this appeal without implicating the treaty rights of the various interested tribes, we hold that the Amici Tribes are not necessary or indispensable parties. Accordingly, dismissal of this appeal under CR 19 is not appropriate.
DNR’s interpretation of the SEPA categorical exemption is entitled to substantial weight and its determination that a land exchange is categorically exempt from SEPA review will be overturned only if it is clearly erroneous. We hold that DNR properly interpreted and applied the SEPA categorical exemption for state land exchanges to determine that the Peninsula Exchange was categorially exempt from SEPA review and that DNR’s finding that the Peninsula Exchange was exempt from SEPA was not clearly erroneous. Additionally, DNR complied with the public lands management statute by adequately consulting with the Makah prior to the Board’s approval of the Peninsula Exchange. Because the superior court’s decision was not manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons, we hold that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Makah a constitutional writ. We affirm.

Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer Cert Petition

Here:

Jamul Pet2

Questions presented:

1. Whether, in 1994, Congress eliminated the distinction between “historic tribes” and “created tribes” and, thereby, eliminated the requirement that a tribe must have pre-existed the United States to have tribal immunity
2. Whether the JIV, which became a quarter-blood Indian group in 1996, is a federally recognized tribe, with tribal immunity, by virtue of the fact that it is still on the list of “Indian tribal entities” eligible to receive BIA services.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court in Oregon Declines to Dismiss Suit against Big Picture Loans-Affiliated Individual

Here are the materials so far in Smith v. Martorello (D. Or.):

100 Amended Complaint

106 Motion to Dismiss

120 Opposition

123 Reply

146 Magistrate Report

148 Objections

149 Rule 19 Motion

150 Response to 148

152 Response to 149

155 Reply in Support of 149

156 DCT Order

Materials in Suit against Caesars [Rincon Band]

Here are the materials so far in Pilant v. Caesars Entertainment Services Inc. (S.D. Cal.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-5 Complaint

3-1 Motion to Dismiss

4 Response

5 Reply

6 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This matter is before the Court on a motion by specially appearing Defendants Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC (“CES”) and Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (“CEI”) to dismiss the complaint for failure to join an indispensable party and for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion has been fully briefed, and the Courtdeems it suitable for submission without oral argument. As discussed below, the motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party is denied and the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted in part and denied in part.

Ninth Circuit Briefing — Tribal Sovereign Immunity Under the Clean Water Act

Here are the briefs relevant to the sovereign immunity issue in Deschutes River Alliance v. Portland General Electric Company:

Final Tribal Amici Brief in Support of Warm Springs – File-Stamped

Appellant’s First Brief

Second Brief on Cross-Appeal – CTWS (filed 9 28 20)

Appellant’s Third Brief

Idaho Power Amicus Brief

PGE Brief

PGE Reply

Tribal Amicus Brief

Warm Springs Reply

And here are the lower court materials in Deschutes River Alliance v. Portland General Electric Company (D. Or.):

72 Warm Springs Motion to Dismiss

74 Pacific Gas Motion to Dismiss

76 Deschutes River Response

78 Pacific Gas Reply

82 Warm Springs Reply

84 Warm Springs Brief in Support of Defendants

103 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Federal Claims in Challenge to Sale of Tule Lake Airport to Modoc Nation

Here are the materials in Tule Lake Committee v. FAA (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

7 FAA Motion to Dismiss

12 Modoc Nation Motion to Dismiss

13 City Motion to Dismiss

15 Opposition to 7

16 Opposition to 13

17 Opposition to 12

18 Tribe Reply

19 City Reply

20 FAA Reply

22 DCt Order

Prior suit here.

Ninth Circuit Holds Claim Falls Within Tribal Waiver of Immunity

Here is the opinion in SPRAWLDEF v. Guidiville Rancheria of California.

Briefs here.

Connecticut, Pequot, and Mohegan Allowed to Intervene and Assert Rule 19 Defense in MGM Challenge to Gaming Compacts

Here are the materials so far in MGM Resorts Global Development LLC v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):

16 Interior Motion to Dismiss

24-1 State & Tribal Sovereigns Motion to Intervene

27 MGM Response to Motion to Dismiss

33 Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

34 MGM Opposition to Motion to Intervene

36 Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene

38 DCT Order Granting Motion to Intervene

We posted the complaint here.