Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Oklahoma v. Interior

Here are the new pleadings in State of Oklahoma v. Dept. of the Interior (W.D. Okla.):

105 Federal Reply

Zoolander’s amicus brief is expected shortly.

Prior post here.

Oklahoma Federal Court Denies Oklahoma’s Bid for Injunction on Creek Mining Regulation

Here is the order in State of Oklahoma v. Dept. of the Interior (W.D. Okla.):

Will post the complete briefs later on. Prior post here.

Oklahoma Federal Court Bars Creek Nation from Oklahoma Mining Jurisdiction Suit against Interior

Here are the materials (so far) in State of Oklahoma v. Dept. of the Interior (W.D. Okla.):

17 State Motion for PI

22 Muscogee (Creek) Nation Motion to Intervene

22-1 Proposed Motion to Dismiss

34 Federal Response to 17

42 Reply in Support of 17

44 Federal Opposition to 22

45 State Opposition to 22

48 Tribe Reply in Support of 22

61 DCT Order Denying 22

We posted the complaint here.

Ninth Circuit Rules (Preliminarily) in Favor of Black Mesa Water Coalition in Attorney Fees Dispute

Here is the opinion in Black Mesa Water Coalition v. Jewell. From the court’s summary:

The panel reversed in part, and vacated in part, the district court’s judgment in an action for costs and expenses brought by a plaintiff group of environmental and community organizations against the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement after plaintiff participated in a successful challenge to OSM’s grant of a coal mining permit revision.

Plaintiff petitioned the agency under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act’s administrative fee-award provision to recover costs and expenses from OSM. The administrative law judge dismissed the fee petition based on the conclusion that plaintiff was not “eligible,” and was not “entitled” to costs and expenses, under 43 C.F.R. § 4.1294(b).

The panel held that its review of the agency’s “eligibility” determination was de novo, and its review of the “entitlement” determination was for substantial evidence. The panel concluded that plaintiff was “eligible” for fees because it showed some degree of success on the merits, and the agency’s contrary conclusion was error as a matter of law. The panel vacated the portion of the district court’s decision as related to the question of entitlement. The panel declined to reach the issue whether plaintiff was “entitled” to fees, and remanded for the agency to consider the issue. Finally, the panel rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Secretary of the Interior had waived a challenge to the reasonableness of any award amount that the agency might grant on remand for costs and expenses reasonably incurred for plaintiff’s participation in the proceedings at the agency level.

And the briefs:

Black Mesa Opening Brief

Interior Appellee Brief

Black Mesa Reply

Black Mesa Supplemental Brief

Interior Supplemental Brief

Black Mesa Supplemental Reply Brief

Oral argument audio here.