Tenth Circuit

Tenth Circuit Rules in Favoring of Trust Accounting Claims of Osage Headright Holders

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Fletcher v. United States:

CA10 Opinion

Fletcher Opening Brief

Interior Answer Brief

Fletcher Reply Brief

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.

Lower court materials here and here.

Tenth Circuit Abates Oklahoma v. Hobia until Supreme Court Decides Michigan v. Bay Mills — Updated

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

2013.09.05 – Order Abating

UPDATE (9/11/13) — Supplemental Briefs are here:

Kialegee Supplemental Brief

Oklahoma Supplemental Brief

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Tenth Circuit Denies Stay in United Keetoowah Trust Acquisition Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials so far in Cherokee Nation v. Jewell:

CA10 Order Denying Motion

Interior Motion for Stay

Cherokee Nation Response

Interior Reply

UKB Reply

Lower court materials here, here, and here.

H/T Pechanga.

Tenth Circuit Rejects Tribal Membership Claim by Alleged Choctaw Freedman Descendant

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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:

Greene Appellant Brief

Federal Appellee Brief

Greene Reply Brief

Tribal Court Brief in Muscogee (Creek) Nation Tribal Court Jurisdiction Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Magnan v. Trammell:

CA10 Opinion

Magnan Opening Brief

Seminole Tribe Amicus

Oklahoma Answer Brief

Magnan Reply Brief

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)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher7 Comments

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:

1-Cressman Opening Brief

2-Oklahoma Answering Brief

3-Cressman Reply

Lower court materials here.

Interesting Tenth Circuit Appeal on Confessions at Kewa Pueblo

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Aguilar:

Unpublished opinion

Aguilar Opening Brief

US Appellee Brief

Aguilar Reply

From the opinion, which in part dealt with a motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment’s voluntariness requirement:

Aguilar argues his consent to the agents to enter his home and view the eagle feathers was involuntary when considering the totality of the circumstances. In particular, Aguilar argues the district court understated the significance of his belief that the agents were acting under the authority of the Pueblo Governor, whom, he argues, he was bound to obey according to Pueblo custom and tradition. In response, the government argues Aguilar’s subjective beliefs are irrelevant to the issue of voluntariness of consent insofar as there is no indication the agents were aware of or took advantage of them.

***

The district court arrived at this finding by noting that, prior to the agents’ arrival, Aguilar had already spoken with the Governor about his having killed eagles on tribal land. From this, the court found it was possible Aguilar thought the Governor informed the USFWS about his killing of eagles, but that it was equally likely Aguilar considered the matter to have been resolved to the Governor’s satisfaction during their meeting.

Appellant’s Brief in Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham

Kate Fort1 Comment

This case involves the authority of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation courts’ authority to hear internal government disputes of the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.

Lower court materials and order of dismissal here.

Appellant’s Brief to the 10th Circuit here.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Conviction for Theft from a Tribal Organization (Northern Arapahoe Tribe)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Addison:

Addison Brief

Federal Govt Brief

CA10 Opinion

An excerpt:

Amanda Addison and Melody St. Clair were on trial for embezzling or converting funds from the Northern Arapahoe Tribe’s Department of Social Services (DSS). On July 7, 2011, the third day of trial, the trial judge declared a mistrial as to St. Clair only and excluded her from the courtroom for the remainder of the trial. Addison was convicted. She brings two issues for our consideration, whether: (1) the exclusion of St. Clair violated Addison’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and (2) the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate criminal intent. Because the district court had a substantial reason for excluding St. Clair, no Sixth Amendment violation occurred. The evidence was sufficient to prove her knowing and intentional taking of DSS funds. We affirm.