Rule 19 – Page 16 – Turtle Talk

The D.C. Circuit has had few, if any, en banc hearings in the last few years because the court is severely understaffed. There have been, however, a rash of dissents from denial of en banc petitions which serve as a sort of marker for later review. Worth it to see if anything happens here.

Opening Briefs in Broken Arrow Casino Appeal — UPDATED with Complete Briefing (3/4/13)

January 29, 2013March 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the Tenth Circuit briefs so far in State of Oklahoma v. Hobia:

Kialegee Tribal Town Brief

Brief Amicus Curiae State of NM (filed 1-25-13) (W1843673)

State of Michigan Amicus Brief

Filed Brief of the Appellee (1-25-13) (W1843503)

Kialegee Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

KG Urban Amends Complaint

January 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

KG Urban Amended Complaint

News coverage here.

The Indian preference part is still there.

Federal Court Denies Navajo Rule 19 Motion in Diné CARE v. US Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

January 7, 2013January 7, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order:

DCT Order Denying Navajo Motion to Dismiss

Briefs are here.

D.C. Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Cherokee Freedmen Suit against Cherokee Officials

December 14, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is today’s opinion in Vann v. Dept. of Interior: CADC Opinion

An excerpt:

Applying the precedents that permit suits against government officials in their official capacities, we conclude that this suit may proceed against the Principal Chief in his official capacity, without the Cherokee Nation itself as a party.
The Freedmen have sued the Principal Chief in his official capacity under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123. The Ex parte Young doctrine allows suits for declaratory and injunctive relief against government officials in their official capacities – notwithstanding the sovereign immunity possessed by the government itself. The Ex parte Young doctrine applies to Indian tribes as well. Cf. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 498 U.S. at 514; see generally Larson, 337 U.S. at 689-92; RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., DANIEL J. MELTZER & DAVID L. SHAPIRO, HART AND WECHSLER’S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 958-60 (5th ed. 2003).

Briefs are here.