Here are the briefs in Wildearth Guardians v. EPA:
Wildearth Guardians Opening Brief
Tenth Circuit
Fremont County, Wyo. Ordered to Pay $960K in Attorney Fees to Indian Plaintiffs in Voting Rights Case
Tenth Circuit Rejects Uinta Allottees Petition for Section 17 Corporate Charter
Here are the materials in Gardner v. Jewell:
Tenth Circuit Rules in Favoring of Trust Accounting Claims of Osage Headright Holders
Here are the materials in Fletcher v. United States:
An excerpt:
After settlers displaced the Osage Nation from its native lands, the federal government shunted the tribe onto the open prairie in Indian Territory, part of what later became the State of Oklahoma. At the time, the government had no idea those grasslands were to prove a great deal more fertile than they appeared. Only years later did the Osages’ mammoth reserves of oil and gas make themselves known. When that happened, the federal government appropriated for itself the role of trustee, overseeing the collection of royalty income and its distribution to tribal members. That role continues to this day. In this lawsuit, tribal members seek an accounting to determine whether the federal government has fulfilled the fiduciary obligations it chose to assume. The district court
dismissed the tribal members’ claims. We reverse.
Tenth Circuit Abates Oklahoma v. Hobia until Supreme Court Decides Michigan v. Bay Mills — Updated
Tenth Circuit Denies Stay in United Keetoowah Trust Acquisition Appeal
Tenth Circuit Rejects Tribal Membership Claim by Alleged Choctaw Freedman Descendant
Here is the opinion in Greene v. Impson.
An excerpt:
The question in this appeal is whether officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) violated Charles Greene’s constitutional rights by failing to provide him an application form to allow descendants of Choctaw Indian Freedman to apply for federal recognition as an Indian.
Briefs:
Tribal Court Brief in Muscogee (Creek) Nation Tribal Court Jurisdiction Appeal
Here is the appellee brief in Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham:
16-Answer brief of Defendant-Appellees
Opening brief here.
Lower court materials here.
Tenth Circuit Decides Seminole Indian Country Habeas Appeal (Effectively Reversing Oklahoma Criminal COA)
Here are the materials in Magnan v. Trammell:
An excerpt:
Petitioner David Magnan pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to three counts of murder in the first degree and one count of shooting with intent to kill. Magnan was sentenced to death for each of the murder convictions and to a term of life imprisonment on the remaining conviction. Magnan argued on direct review that the crimes occurred in “Indian country,” 18 U.S.C. § 1151, and that, as a result, the state trial court lacked jurisdiction over the crimes. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) held, however, that a 1970 conveyance to the Housing Authority of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma extinguished all Indian lands restrictions that had previously attached to the surface estate of the property where the crimes occurred. The OCCA further held that, even assuming that restrictions remained on 4/5ths of the mineral estate, such interest wasunobservable and insufficient to deprive the State of Oklahoma of criminal jurisdiction over the surface property at issue. In a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Magnan again asserted that the crimes at issue occurred in “Indian country” and that the state trial court was without jurisdiction. The district court denied Magnan’s petition but granted him a certificate of appealability. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we need only address the status of the surface estate to agree with Magnan that the location where the crimes occurred was “Indian country” because the requirements to extinguish the restrictions placed on Indian lands by Congress were not met and that, as a result, the state trial court lacked jurisdiction over the crimes. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to grant Magnan’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
State court decision, with our commentary, here.
Tenth Circuit Revives Establishment Clause Challenge to Oklahoma’s Indian Arrow License Plate (UPDATED)
Here is the opinion in Cressman v. Thompson. Update — Now with dissent: 12-6151
An excerpt:
This appeal concerns an image stamped on the standard Oklahoma license plate ofa Native American shooting an arrow toward the sky. Appellant Keith Cressman objects to the image as a form of speech and wishes not to display it on his personal vehicles.But Oklahoma law imposes sanctions for covering up the image, and the state charges fees for specialty license plates without it—fees that Mr. Cressman does not want to pay. Because he must either display the image or pay additional fees, he argues that the state is compelling him to speak in violation of his First Amendment rights.
And the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.