Ninth Circuit Briefs in Apache Stronghold v. United States


Apache Stronghold Opening Brief

NCAI Brief

Religious Liberty Groups Brief

Religious Liberty Law Scholars Brief

USDA Brief

Case tag here.

USDA Pulls Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat/Resolution Copper Mine [updated with CA9 Order Denying Stay Pending Appeal]

Here is the press release from Rep. Raúl Grijalva on the matter. Gizmodo coverage here.

And the briefs in Apache Stronghold v. United States (9th Cir.):

Emergency Motion

Federal Opposition

Religious Groups Amicus Brief

Religious Liberty Scholars Amicus Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.


CA9 Order Denying Stay

Briefing in Attempt to Enjoin Copper Mining Project at Chi’chil Biłdagoteel [Oak Flat]

Here are the materials in Apache Stronghold v. United States (D. Ariz.):

1 Complaint

7 Motion for TRO

18 US Response

23 Reply in Support of 7

50 US Closing Brief

51 Apache Stronghold Closing Brief

56 Amicus Brief

Ninth Circuit Decides US v. Gila River Irrigation District

Here are the materials, including the opinion:

USA v Gila Valley Irrigation District Opinion

US Opening Brief

GRIC and SCAT Appellants Brief

Freeport Minerals Brief

Irrigation Districts Brief

US Reply

San Carlos Apache Tribe Reply

Gila River Indian Community Reply Brief

Freeport Minerals Reply

Amicus Brief Supporting Appellees

Appellees Supplemental Brief

Appellants Supplemental Brief

Arizona COA Holds Tribally-Licensed Attorney May Not Practice Law Off Reservation without State License

Here is the opinion in State Bar of Arizona v. Lang (Ariz. App.):

State Bar of Arizona v Lang

An excerpt:

Randy D. Lang, a nonmember of the State Bar of Arizona, was enjoined from practicing law in Arizona based on evidence that he repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. We hold that a person who presents himself as an attorney based in an Arizona office engages in the unauthorized practice of law unless he has been admitted to practice before the Arizona Supreme Court, even if he has been admitted to practice in a tribal court within the boundaries of Arizona. The supreme court rules that compel this conclusion violate neither the First Amendment nor principles of tribal sovereignty. We further conclude that the superior court properly granted the State Bar of Arizona’s motion for summary judgment, and that the injunction is reasonable in its scope. We therefore affirm.