Tenth Circuit

Tenth Circuit Dismisses Appeal and Awards Attorney Fees to Iowa Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Monster Tech. Group v. Eller:

Monster Tech Motion to Dismiss.pdfDownload
Tribe Motion for Attorney Fees.pdfDownload
Monster Tech Response to Motion for Attorney Fees.pdfDownload
Tribe Response to Motion to Dismiss.pdfDownload
Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss.pdfDownload
Reply in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees.pdfDownload
Unpublished Opinion.pdfDownload

Merits briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Hooper v. City of Tulsa

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Hooper Opening Brief.pdfDownload
Muscogee Nation Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
Tribes Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
Tulsa Answer Brief.pdfDownload
Oklahoma Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
Reply.pdfDownload

Lower court materials here.

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe [sanctions order against tribe]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Ute Tribe Opening Brief.pdfDownload
Answer Brief.pdfDownload

Jurrius Brief

Ute Reply.pdfDownload

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUS Affirms in Denezpi v. United States

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

Briefs and other materials here.

Hawaiian ghost flower

Tenth Circuit Dismisses Navajo Farmers Claims Arising from Gold King Mine Spill

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Allen v. Environmental Restoration LLC.

Briefs:

Opening Brief.pdfDownload
Answer Brief.pdfDownload
Gold Mine Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
Reply.pdfDownload

Tenth Circuit Rejects Ute Tribe’s Effort to Force Water Rights Case to be Adjudicated in Tribal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Ute Indian Tribe v. McKee.

Briefs:

Ute Brief.pdfDownload
McKee Brief.pdfDownload
Ute Reply.pdfDownload

Lower court materials here.

Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Becker Pet. for Cert..pdfDownload

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.

Circuit split?

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Brief in Opposition.pdfDownload
Becker Reply Brief.pdfDownload

Tenth Circuit Briefs in State of Kansas ex rel. Schmidt v. Dept. of the Interior

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Opening Brief.pdfDownload
Interior Response Brief.pdfDownload
Reply.pdfDownload

Lower court materials here.

Wyandotte removal trail.

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Monster Tech. Group v. Eller [Iowa Tribe]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Opening Brief

Tribe Answer Brief

Lower court materials here.

Smoking monster engine destroying town

Semi-Split Tenth Circuit Decides Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation [banishment]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

Briefs here.

An excerpt:

We begin by discussing the tribal exhaustion doctrine involved in this case. “[W]hen a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim arising in Indian country over which a tribal forum has colorable jurisdiction, principles of comity and the federal policy of promoting tribal self-government generally require that the plaintiff fully exhaust tribal remedies before proceeding in federal court.” Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 59 cmt. a (Am. Law Inst., Proposed Final Draft 2021).

slip op. at 14.

Maybe a little more Restatement. . . .

Post–Santa Clara Pueblo, federal review has been limited to habeas, leaving tribal courts to adjudicate any other civil rights claims. See Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 16 cmt. a (“With the exception of actions for habeas corpus relief [under § 1303, ICRA’s civil rights] guarantees are enforceable exclusively in tribal courts and other tribal fora.”).

slip op. at 21.
Ute Indians camped at Belle Fourche, South Dakota, who are dissatisfied with their treatment: Capt. Johnson, with the Sixth Cavalry from Ft. Meade, S.D., addressing Indians, who they were sent to arrest

And more. . . .

Tribal exhaustion doctrine exists to preserve tribal sovereignty and prevent the federal courts from running roughshod over tribal legal systems. See Norton, 862 F.3d at 1243; Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 28 cmt. a (“[A]djudication of matters impairing reservation affairs by any nontribal court . . . infringes upon tribal law-making authority, because tribal courts are best qualified to interpret and apply tribal law.”).

Slip op. at 34.