California Federal Court Dismisses Anti-NAGPRA Scholar’s Free Speech Suit

Here are the materials in Weiss v. Perez (N.D. Cal.):

16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

31 San Jose State Motion to Dismiss

32 SJSU Opposition to 16

46 Reply in Support of 16

57 Opposition to 31’\

60 Reply in Support of 31

Complaint posted here.

Alaska Federal Court Denies Rule 19 Motion in Tribal Health Care Case

Here are the materials in Southcentral Foundation v. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (D. Alaska), on remand from the Ninth Circuit (materials here):

296 ANTHC Rule 19 Motion

302 Response

308-1 Amicus Brief

310 Reply

316 Southcentral Motion for Summary

317 Response

322 Reply

Rule 19 doesn’t work well when it’s dark outside. . . .

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage materials.

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Wind Energy Project under Rule 19, Tribal Immunity

Here are materials so far in Backcountry Against Dumps v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (S.D. Cal.):

75-1 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

84 Opposition

87 Reply

93 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Federal Court Assumes Federal Jurisdiction over Effort by Nonmember to Claim Easement on Trust Land

Here are the materials so far in Carney v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-2 Amended Complaint

10 Swinomish Motion to Dismiss

16 State Response to 10

21 Motion to Remand

23 Carney Response to 10

28 Swinomish Reply in Support of 10

32 State Response to 21

33 Swinomish Response to 21

34 Carney Reply in Support of 21

36 DCT Order Denying Motion to Remand

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D2 54945-0-II Unpublished Opinion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.

Update with the rest of the briefs:

2020.08.17 QTA Amicus Motion

2020.08.17 QTA Declaration and Report

2020.08.18 Order Allowing QTA Amicus Brief

2020.08.29 Opening Brief of Makah Tribe

2020.09.11 QTA Amicus Brief

2020.09.11 QTA Amicus Declaration

2020.09.18 Opening Brief of Respondents

Ruling denying stay and accelerating review (7.17.20)

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.