Here.
ETA: As pointed out on our Facebook page, here’s the LA Times article linked to in that article with additional background. Thanks to T.S.
sovereign immunity
Durante v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority
A dram shop action from the Superior Court, Hartford Judicial District. The court found no waiver of sovereign immunity and dismissed the case.
Justice Stevens Critical of Seminole Tribe v. Florida & Sovereign Immunity
In his new book, according to the National Law Journal’s Marcia Coyle, Justice Stevens levels strong criticism at the Supreme Court’s decision in Seminole Tribe v. Florida:
The tenor of the Court’s deliberations changed immediately when William Rehnquist became chief justice, according to Stevens. Rehnquist, he writes, was an impartial presiding officer and meticulous in noting the justices’ different positions on issues in each argued case. But Stevens levels some of the book’s sharpest criticism on Rehnquist’s decisions involving state sovereign immunity. Stevens considers the first in a line of 11th Amendment rulings — Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida — one of the Court’s worst rulings in his nearly 35 years. In an interview withThe National Law Journal, he explained that sovereign immunity is a “doctrine of injustice.”
And he calls the retirement of Thurgood Marshall, the “most significant judicial event” of Rehnquist’s tenure as chief, not only because of Marshall’s contributions to the Court’s conference but because of the changes in the Court’s jurisprudence attributable to the votes of his successor, Clarence Thomas.
Sand Hill Lenape Land Claim Fails
Here is the opinion in New Jersey Sand Hill Band of Lenape and Cherokee Indians v. State of New Jersey (D. N.J.):
Ninth Circuit Dismisses Bishop Community Land Claim against City of Los Angeles under Rule 19
Here is the opinion in Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community v. City of Los Angeles.
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California, an Indian tribe formallyrecognized by the United States, filed this action againstDefendant City of Los Angeles for an order restoring Plaintiffto possession of land that the City took long ago in a deal withthe United States. The district court dismissed the actionunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) because itruled that, under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States was a required party that Plaintiffcould not join. The district court certified the appealability ofits order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Upon Plaintiff’s timelyrequest, we agreed to hear this interlocutory appeal, and we now affirm.
And the briefs:
Tenth Circuit Applies Quiet Title Act in Tribal Challenge to Trust Acquisition–UPDATED with Briefs
Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Seminole Tribe Cancellation of Lease
Here are the briefs in Hollywood Mobile Estates v. Seminole Tribe of Florida:
Hollywood Mobile Opening Brief
[still looking for the Tribe’s brief]
Here are the lower court materials.
Federal Court Denies Injunction in Muscogee Cigarette Seizure Case
Thanks to Mike for this. Here’s a news article on this case.
A federal court dismissed a request for an injunction against the Oklahoma Tax Commission for seizing tobacco products owned by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. State law enforcement had seized the smokes on some pretty spurious grounds, pulling the trucks over for “weaving” and “following too close” (not texting!?!). The court rejected most of the Commission’s defenses, including standing and sovereign immunity, but dismissed the claim on the basis that Indian tribes are not “persons” that can sue under Section 1983, per Inyo County.
Sounds to us like a Section 1983 legislative “fix” is in order, too, like all the other problems created by the Supreme Court in the last decade.
More later.
MHA Nation Survives Motion to Dismiss Claims for Contract Support Costs from IHS
Here is the opinion in Three Affiliated Tribes v. United States (D. D.C.) — MHA Nation v. US DCT Order
An excerpt:
laintiff Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation (“Three Tribes”) brings this action against the United States of America, Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert G. McSwain, Director of the Indian Health Service (“IHS”), and Charlene M. Red Thunder, Acting Area Director of the IHS, in their official capacities (collectively, “defendants”). The dispute arises from a contract proposal Three Tribes submitted to defendants to provide health services within its reservation pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. Three Tribes claims that defendants improperly declined two portions of that proposal: (1) inclusion of contract support costs (“CSCs”) in Three Tribes’ annual funding agreement (Count I); and (2) permission to provide health care services to non-Indians pursuant to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (“IHCIA”), 25 U.S.C. § 1680c(b) (Count II). Now before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss. For the reasons explained below, the motion will be denied.
The materials:
No Jurisdiction in Suit against Feds over Choctaw Membership
Here is the opinion in Greene v. Skibine (E.D. Cal.) in which the federal court dismissed the complaint sua sponte — Greene v Skibine DCT Order
Greene has made many efforts to gain membership in the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.