Here:
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Wisconsin COA Reverses Termination of Indian Parent’s Rights for Due Process Violations
SCOTUS Denies Cert in Sault Tribe Trust Acquisition Case
Michigan Tribes Exit U.S. Army Corps Sham “Consultation” re: Line 5
Federal BIO in Sault Tribe Gaming Lands Case
Here is the brief in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Burgam:
Cert petition here.
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland Cert Petition [all cert stage briefs]
Here:
Questions presented:
The Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (“MILCSA”) established a Self-Sufficiency Fund for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians to receive judgment funds that settled claims against the United States for the unconscionable taking of tribal lands. The statute, which codified a negotiated agreement between the Tribe and the United States, gave the Tribe’s Board of Directors exclusive authority over the Self-Sufficiency Fund, including determinations about the proper use of Fund capital and interest. The broad purposes for which the Tribe may expend Fund interest under MILCSA include the “enhancement of tribal lands.” §108(c)(5). And MILCSA requires the Secretary of the Interior to hold in trust “[a]ny lands” acquired with Fund interest. §108(f). The questions presented are:
- Whether Congress delegated to the Department of the Interior under MILCSA the authority to reject a mandatory trust submission based on the agency’s own view about whether the purchase of land satisfied §108(c), notwithstanding the statutory command that “[a]ny lands acquired using amounts from interest or other income of the [Tribe’s] Self-Sufficiency Fund shall be held in trust by the Secretary [of the Interior] for the benefit of the tribe.” §108(f).
- Whether “enhancement of tribal lands” in §108(c)(5) of MILCSA includes a land acquisition that adds to or augments the size of the Tribe’s total landholdings.
Lower court materials here.
Additional briefs:

Two Sault Tribe Chippewa Appellate Decisions on Election Matters
Here is the opinion in Payment v. Election Commission:
Here is the opinion in McRorie v. Election Commission:
D.C. Circuit Again Rejects Sault Tribe Mandatory Trust Land Acquisition Claims
Michigan Federal Court Dismisses Lay Advocate’s Civil Rights Suit against Sault Tribal Judge and Private Attorney, Orders $1500 Sanction Award
Here are the materials in Bellfy v. Edwards (W.D. Mich.):
25 Bellfy Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
29 Edwards Motion for Sanctions
30 DCT Order Quashing Subpoena
31 Bellfy Motion for Summary J

Sault Tribe Trust Land Acquisition Appeal [updated 1/12/24]
Here are the briefs (only one so far) in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (D.C. Cir.):
Lower court materials here.




You must be logged in to post a comment.