Port Authority’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and TRO:
On February 10, the Blackfeet Nation filed a Response in Support of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order:
Brief in Response:
The Blackfeet Nation intervened in the case, arguing that the State of Montana does not have the authority to enforce state law on the Reservation.
This case is about whether the Montana Human Rights Bureau can enforce state law on Blackfeet Nation land. Here is the brief in support of the motion to intervene.
And here is the order granting intervention.
More on the case here.
Here:
Questions presented:
Whether a federal court may force a non-consenting, non-Indian plaintiff to exhaust his claims in tribal court when the defendant tribe has expressly consented by contract to federal or state court jurisdiction and waived both sov- ereign immunity and tribal exhaustion.
Whether a state court may adjudicate a contractual dispute between a tribe and a non-Indian where the tribe has provided specific contrac- tual consent to state court jurisdiction; or in- stead, whether the Constitution or laws of the United States prohibit such exercises of state court jurisdiction unless the State has assumed general civil jurisdiction over tribal territory under Sections 1322 and 1326 of Title 25.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Here are the materials in the matter of Navajo Nation et al v. Rael et al, 16-cv-00888 (D. N.M. 2016):
Here are the materials in the matter of Navajo Nation et al v. Marsh et al, 15-cv-00799 (D. N.M. 2016):
Doc. 12 – Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 13 – Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 17 – McNeal Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 19 – Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 21 – Memorandum Opinion and Order
Link to previously posted complaint here.
Here are the materials in Gustafson v. Poitra (D. N.D.):
An excerpt:
The Court notes the equities clearly favor the Gustafsons, and the Court is sympathetic to the jurisdictional dilemma they find themselves in. The juvenile behavior and attitude of the Poitras that triggered the need for the issuance of the TRO in October 2012 is difficult for any reasonable person to understand. However, the plaintiffs cannot use the Declaratory Judgment Act as a vehicle to resolve a multitude of long-standing disputes which neither raise a federal question nor bear any relationship to a lawsuit over which the Court would have jurisdiction.
We have posted on the multiple suits in this long-running dispute here, here, and here.
Here is the opinion in Gustafson v. Poitra.
The court’s syllabus:
The appellate court may consider whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and may consider the issue sua sponte.
A state court does not have subject matter jurisdiction where a non-Indian claimant initiates an action against Indian defendants over a lease of fee land owned by the Indian defendants within the exterior boundaries of the reservation.
Here is the opinion in Kelly v. Kelly. An excerpt:
Richard Kelly appealed from a district court judgment granting him a divorce from Karol Kelly but concluding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the incidents of the marriage. We reverse and remand, concluding the district court had concurrent subject matter jurisdiction with the tribal court to adjudicate the incidents of the parties’ marriage.
And the materials:
Here is the opinion in Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, with several concurrences and dissents. And here are the briefs:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.