BLT: Government Moves to Dismiss Geronimo/Skull and Bones Case

Here is the motion — Obama Motion to Dismiss

From BLT:

Justice Department lawyers have moved to dismiss claims against the government in a lawsuit over the remains of the legendary Apache warrior Geronimo.

In February, a group of Native Americans claiming to have descended from the 19th century military leader sued the government, as well as Yale University and the Order of the Skull and Bones, in an attempt to retrieve Geronimo’s remains. After his death in 1909, Geronimo’s body was buried at the Fort Sill United States Army Base in Lawton, Oklahoma. But according to popular lore, members of the Yale secret society broke into his tomb and stole his skull, which it now keeps on display in New Haven.

Continue reading

City of New York v. Golden Feather — Update

As Indianz reported, the Eastern District of New York delayed ruling on the City’s motion for a preliminary injunction and rejected a sovereign immunity from the smokeshops. Here is the order — march-16-dct-order

Here is our earlier post that includes the complaint.

Standing Rock Housing Authority v. EEOC — TRO Case against Administrative Subpoena Dismissed

This case involved an administrative subpoena issued by the EEOC against the Standing Rock Housing Authority over claims of sex discrimination. The District of North Dakota declined to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the case was not ripe.

standing-rock-complaint

eeoc-motion-to-dismiss

standing-rock-response

eeoc-reply-brief

standing-rock-v-eeoc-dct-order

US v. Newell — DCT Refuses to Dismiss Indictment Against Former Passamaquoddy Governor

I guess the heading says it all — Robert Newell was indicted for misappropriating federal money while governor of the tribe. His arguments on the motion to dismiss were based in federal Indian law; i.e., sovereign immunity, federal government failure to comply with PL 638. etc.

us-v-newell-indictment

dct-order-on-newell-motion-to-dismiss

Hollywood Mobile Estates v. Seminole Tribe — Sovereign Immunity

In Hollywood Mobile Estates v. Seminole Tribe, the Florida Southern District Court refused to grant an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction against the tribe. The court reasoned it is unlikely that the plaintiff will succeed in its claims against the tribe because the tribe has raised sovereign immunity as a defense. The underlying dispute is over a lease.

dct-order-denying-motion-for-prelim-injunction

hollywood-motion-for-prelim-injunction

seminole-opposition-to-motion

hollywood-reply

And here is the still pending motion to dismiss — seminole-motion-to-dismiss

BMG v. Chukchansi Casino — Tribal Sovereign Immunity

In the September 12, 2007 order, the district court granted the motion to dismiss as to the Chukchansi Indian Tribe, but left open the question as to whether sovereign immunity applied to the tribe’s economic development entity. In the August 6, 2008 order, the court held the entity was not entitled to sovereign immunity.

Here are the relevant briefs and materials:

amended-complaint

casino-motion-to-dismiss

bmg-resp-to-motion-to-dismiss

bmg-motion-for-reconsideration

Kate Fort on The New Laches

Kate Fort of MSU College of Law has posted “The New Laches” on SSRN. This is the first comprehensive and historical study of the application of laches doctrine to sovereigns, federal, state, and tribal. Here is the abstract:

Tribal land claims are facing a new challenge from an old area of law. Courts have been paying special attention to the law of equity and how it can defeat tribal land claims. Specifically, the equitable defenses of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility were used by the Supreme Court to hand defeat to the Oneida Indian Nation on a tax issue. Since then, lower courts in the Second Circuit have used this precedent to deny Indian land claims. But are these three defenses based on precedent themselves? Rarely. Instead, they have been combined to create a new defense, what I will call the “new laches.” This new defense, so far used successfully in Indian land cases in New York state and unsuccessfully elsewhere, has been so broadly construed by the Second Circuit that, if this view is adopted nationwide, it could apply to any treaty-based claim brought by Indians or Indian tribes.

Cachil Dehe Band v. California — Ninth Circuit Affirms Rule 19 Dismissal of Claim against State

Rule 19 (my favorite FRCP) strikes again!

Here is the opinion in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians v. State of California: cachil-dehe-band-v-california-ca9-opinion

And the briefs:

cachil-dehe-band-brief

california-brief-cachil-dehe-band

tribal-amicus-brief-cachil-dehe-band-case

Hendrix v. Coffee — Comanche Membership Dispute

Here are the materials in this case, dismissed on the basis that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

hendrix-complaint

comanche-motion-to-dismiss

hendrix-brief

hendrix-v-coffee-dct-opinion

Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel — Rule 19 and Sovereign Immunity

The Supreme Court released its opinion in Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, just a few minutes ago. The case involved a claim under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and FRCP 19 that a human rights claim involving the Philippines should be dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party (a sovereign entity with sovereign immunity). The briefings featured several Indian law cases decided by the lower courts.

The Supreme Court’s opinion highlighted one of these opinions, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes v. Hodel, 788 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1986). This is one of the strongest pro-tribal sovereign opinions on this question ever decided. Good deal, despite the bad outcome for human rights claimants in general.