Federal Court Issues Decision in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 19-01

Here are the updated materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding 19-01:

61 S’Klallam Response

63 Upper Skagit Response

67 Lummi Response

68 Tulalip Response

69 Swinomish Response

74 Swinomish Reply

76 Upper Skagit Reply

77 Reply

78 Tulalip Reply

79 DCT Order

Earlier briefs here.

Federal Court Assumes Federal Jurisdiction over Effort by Nonmember to Claim Easement on Trust Land

Here are the materials so far in Carney v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-2 Amended Complaint

10 Swinomish Motion to Dismiss

16 State Response to 10

21 Motion to Remand

23 Carney Response to 10

28 Swinomish Reply in Support of 10

32 State Response to 21

33 Swinomish Response to 21

34 Carney Reply in Support of 21

36 DCT Order Denying Motion to Remand

Tulalip, Suquamish, Swinomish, and Upper Skagit Reach Settlement with State on Crab Harvest Estimates

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington, subproceeding 89-03 (W.D. Wash.):

14809 Joint Stipulation

14810 DCT Order

Three Tribes Withdraw Laches as a Defense in US v. Washington Subproceeding 17-03

Here are the notices of withdrawal of laches as a defense in United States v. Washington subproceeding 17-03 (W.D. Wash.):

Sub 17-03 Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Notice of Withdrawal of Laches Defense 011921

Sub 17-03 The Tulalip Tribes Withdrawal of Laches Defense 011921

Sub 17-03 Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Withdrawal of Laches Defense 011921

Prior posts here and here.

As I wrote in 2015, I see this as a good thing — the possibility that the laches defense could be used against tribal treaty rights has hung like a smoggy haze over Indian country ever since 2005. It staggers me to think that tribes would do this to themselves for short-term, and probably illusory, gain.

Tribes and States Sue to Block Sale and Removal of National Archives in Seattle

Here is the complaint in State of Washington v. Vought (W.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

15 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

30 Amended Complaint

32 Opposition

37 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Proposed Form of Injunctive Relief

40 Reply

News coverage:

Washington AG press release: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-announces-coalition-lawsuit-save-national-archives

Indian Country Today: https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/tribes-sue-to-stop-relocation-of-rare-documents-3wsWTPg0fka-vOAV1Uoj2g

Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/ag-ferguson-with-tribes-and-historic-groups-sues-feds-over-seattle-national-archives-closure/

Spokesman Review: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jan/04/ag-bob-ferguson-sues-to-stop-sale-of-seattle-natio/

Yakama Nation press release:

Press Release_YN_OMB_Seattle Archives Lawsuit (1.4.21) (002)

Muckleshoot v. Tulalip U&A Cert Petition

Here is the cert petition in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with precedent of this Court and the D.C. Circuit, impermissibly narrowed a decades-old judicial decree so as to deprive Indian tribes of their ability to exercise treaty fishing rights.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Brief in Opposition

Federal Court Dismisses Habitual D.V. Offender Indictment arising on Swinomish

Here are the materials in United States v. Casey (W.D. Wash.):

18 Motion to Dismiss

23 Response

24 Reply

44 DCT Order

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Affirms Dismissal of Muckleshoot U&A Appeal

Here is the opinion in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes, subproceeding 17-02 of United States v. Washington.

Briefs here.