Here is the opinion in Silva v. Parrish (E.D. N.Y.):
Briefs here.
Second Circuit
Silva v. Farrish – Shinnecock Fishing Case Summary Judgment Briefings
Here are the pleadings in Silva v. Farrish (E.D. N.Y.):
152 NCAI and Shinnecock Kelp Farmers Amicus Brief
160 Law and History Professors Amicus Brief
161-11 Pls’ MoL in Supp of SMJ
161-14 Defs’ MoL in Opp’n to Pls’ SMJ
162-1 Defs’ MoL in Support SJM
Prior post here.
Unkechauge Indian Nation v. Seggos Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
Whether the District Court violated Petitioners’ due process rights by granting summary judgment without first fulfilling its gatekeeping obligation under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to rule on the parties’ pending motions to exclude or limit expert testimony?
Whether the District Court erred by relying on the Respondents’ expert witness in its summary judgment decision without first addressing the Petitioners’ motion to exclude or limit Respondents’ expert’s testimony under Daubert?
Whether the District Court violated Petitioners’ due process rights by failing to conduct an in camera review of 4,780 documents withheld by Respondents under claims of privilege, despite having ordered such a review and having possession of the documents since May 2019?
Whether the Court improperly analyzed the Andros Treaty by not finding the Treaty ambiguous and conducting the Indian Canons analysis?
Whether the Court misapprehended the law in finding the Andros Treaty not valid under Federal law?
Lower court materials here.
Second Circuit Rejects Unkechauge Eeling Rights
Second Circuit Briefs in Unkechauge Indian Nation v. New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Second Circuit Affirms Conviction of Conspirator in Wakpamni Frauds
Harvard Law Review Casenote on Silva v. Parrish
Second Circuit Allows Thruway Trespass Suit against New York to Proceed
Second Circuit Issues Decision in Shinnecock Fishing Rights Case
Non-decision, more like. Here are the materials in Silva v. Farrish:
Opinion here. Excerpt from the court’s syllabus:
We hold that Ex parte Young applies to the plaintiffs’ fishing-rights claims against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) officials— but not against the DEC itself—because the plaintiffs allege an ongoing violation of federal law and seek prospective relief against state officials. We also hold that the plaintiffs have Article III standing to seek prospective relief and that Younger abstention no longer bars Silva from seeking prospective relief because his criminal proceedings have ended. We therefore conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the DEC officials on the plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims because there is no evidence in the record that would permit an inference of discriminatory intent.
Lower court materials here.
Federal Court Rejects Seneca Effort to Vacate Judgment on Gaming Payments to State
Here are the new materials in Seneca Nation v. State of New York (W.D. N.Y.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.