Second Circuit

2nd Circuit Affirms Oneida Fee into Trust Judgment

Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Here are the materials in the matter of Upstate Citizens for Equality v. United States of America, 15-cv-01688 (Nov. 9, 2016):

Doc. 100 Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants Town of Vernon, New York, Town of Verona, Abraham Acee and Arthur Strife

Doc. 101 Brief and Special Appendix for Plaintiffs Appellants Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc., David Brown Vickers, Richard Tallcot, Scott Peterman and Daniel T. Warren

Doc. 134 Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants Town of Vernon, New York, Town of Verona, Abraham Acee and Arthur Strife

Doc. 149 Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc., David Brown Vickers, Richard Tallcot, Scott Peterman and Daniel T. Warren

Doc. 151 Response Brief of the Federal Defendants-Appellees

Doc. 183 Judgment

Link to previously posted lower court materials here.

Second Circuit Rejects Section 1983 Claim against Foxwoods/Pequot

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the summary order in Sun v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Commission:

sun-v-mashantucket-pequot-gaming-commission

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

Second Circuit Briefs in Challenge to New York Oneida Trust Land Acquisition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs in Central New York Fair Business Assn. v. Jewell:

Appellant Brief

Federal Brief

Oneida Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Federal Court Challenge to Onondaga Nation’s ICWA Jurisdiction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Pitre v. Shenandoah:

Pitre2ndCir2-18-16

Appellant Brief

Onondaga Brief

Onondaga County Brief

Oswego County Brief

Reply Brief

Second Circuit Materials in Sun v. Mashantucket

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in Sun v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise:

Sun Opening Brief

Pequot Answer Brief

Robinson Answer Brief

Reply TK

Lower court materials here.

Second Circuit Decides Cayuga Nation v. Tanner

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs‐Appellants, the Cayuga Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and individual officers, employees, and representatives of the Cayuga Nation, filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge) against the Village of Union Springs, the Board of Trustees of the Village, and individual Village officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs contend that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701‐2721, preempts the defendants’ efforts to enforce a local anti‐gambling ordinance against a gaming facility located on land owned by Cayuga Nation.

The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because it could not determine, in light of an ongoing leadership dispute within Cayuga Nation, whether the lawsuit was authorized as a matter of tribal law. Following a motion for reconsideration, the district court additionally held that the individual plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue in their own right.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court had jurisdiction because the Bureau of Indian Affairs had recognized Clint Halftown, who initiated this suit, as the Cayuga Nation’s “federal representative,” thereby relieving the court of the need to resolve questions of tribal law, and because the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the anti‐gaming ordinance. We agree and therefore VACATE the district court’s order dismissing the complaint and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Briefs here.

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Shinnecock Land Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Shinnecock Indian Nation v. State of New York:

New York Brief

Shinnecock Opening Brief

Shinnecock Reply

Shinnecock v NY Opinion

Second Circuit Rules in Favor of Seneca Nation in Gaming Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri:

CACGEC Opinion

The court’s syllabus:

The plaintiffs, organizations and individuals who oppose the operation of a casino on land owned by the Seneca Nation of Indians in Buffalo, New York, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York against the National Indian Gaming Commission, its Chairman, the Department of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Interior, arguing that the National Indian Gaming Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously and abused its discretion in approving an ordinance that permitted the Seneca Nation to operate a class III gaming facility in Buffalo. The district court (Skretny, J.) dismissed the action, and the plaintiffs appealed. We hold that the Seneca Nation’s lands in Buffalo are gaming‐eligible under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721, as “Indian lands” under the Seneca Nation’s jurisdiction and that IGRA Section 20’s prohibition of gaming on trust lands acquired after IGRA’s enactment, 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a), does not apply. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

Second Circuit Rejects Jay Treaty Statute Defense to Criminal Prosecution

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in United States v. Malachowski:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

CA2 Order

An excerpt:

Malachowski invokes 8 U.S.C. § 1359, which allows American Indians born in Canada to freely cross the borders of the United States, and contends that he was wrongfully convicted of counts three, four, five, and six. The statute extends only “to persons who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of the American Indian race,” and we previously expressed skepticism that Malachowksi satisfied his burden of proof on this point. See Malachowski, 415 F. App’x at 313 (noting the “dearth of evidence respecting [Malachowski’s] ancestry”). Neither the immigration officer assigned to Malachowksi’s case nor the ATF agent investigating Malachowksi unearthed evidence of his American Indian heritage. G.A. 58, 146-47. And when Malachowski was arrested by a border patrol agent and asked “Do you claim any legal status in the United States?” Malachowski answered “No.” G.A. 54. During this encounter, Malachowski also did not “claim any other citizenship or nationality.” Id. Malachowksi has accordingly fallen short of prevailing on this claim.

Second Circuit Briefs in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Lower court materials here and here.