tribal sovereign immunity – Page 74

Colorado COA Dismisses Colorado AG’s Appeal of Cash Advance Matter

December 19, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Colorado v Cash Advance Colo. COA Opinion

Lower court opinion here.

Sixth Circuit Reverses in Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe

December 18, 2013December 18, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here is the opinion:

Michigan v SSM CA6 Opinion

An excerpt:

Because the State is not suing to enjoin a class III gaming activity, but instead a trust submission under MILCSA, § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) of IGRA does not abrogate the Tribe’s sovereign immunity, and the district court lacked jurisdiction. The issue of whether class III gaming on the casino property will violate IGRA if the Tribe’s MILCSA trust submission is successful is not ripe for adjudication because it depends on contingent future events that may never occur. The injunction was therefore not properly entered.

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Remands Cal. Valley Miwok Membership Issues to BIA

December 16, 2013December 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Jewell (D. D.C.):

56 Federal Motion for Summary J

83 Intervenor CVMT Response to US Motion

86 Plaintiff CVMT Reply

87 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

88 DCT Order on Cross-Motions for Summary J

An excerpt:

For the reasons discussed below, this Court concludes that the Assistant Secretary erred when he assumed that the Tribe’s membership is limited to five individuals and further assumed that the Tribe is governed by a duly constituted tribal council, thereby ignoring multiple administrative and court decisions that express concern about the nature of the Tribe’s governance. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in so far as it seeks remand of the August 2011 Decision and deny the Federal Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment.

Prior posts are here, here, and here.

Update in Wells Fargo v. Chukchansi

December 13, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

News coverage here.

The order referenced in the article is here:

353 SCT Order Dismissing Counterclaim against Wells Fargo

And materials:

166 Ayala Opposition

270 Wells Fargo Motion

342 Ayala Reply

Contract Breach Claim against Delaware Tribal Officials Survives in Pennsylvania Federal Court

November 26, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Magyar v. Kennedy (E.D. Pa.):

11 Motion to Dismiss

12 Response

18 Reply

23 Motion to Dismiss Count 1

24 Response

31 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Count 1

An excerpt:

Thus, based upon an examination of the Second Amended Complaint and its Exhibits, we determine that Plaintiff has met his burden to convince us that Defendants acted beyond their official capacity and outside the scope of their authority when they terminated Plaintiff’s Agreements and failed to compensate Plaintiff for the services he rendered in June 2012. Accordingly, we conclude that the Second Amended Complaint alleges facts sufficient to persuade us that Defendants are not protected by sovereign immunity in connection with Count One of the Second Amended Complaint.

Fletcher on the Michigan v. Bay Mills Case

November 18, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is (Re)Solving the Tribal No-Forum Conundrum: Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (PDF), published in the Yale Law Journal Online.

The abstract:

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, a dispute over a controversial off-reservation Indian casino, is the latest opportunity for the Supreme Court to address the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. The Court could hand Michigan a big win by broadly abrogating tribal immunity, and in turn wreak havoc on modern tribal governance. Alternately, the Court could hand Bay Mills a victory by affirming the tribe’s immunity, effectively precluding judicial review of the tribe’s casino project. In this Essay, Professor Matthew L.M. Fletcher argues that neither choice is preferable to a third option that would both advance tribal self-determination and hold tribes accountable to outsiders. The Court could condition tribal immunity in federal or state court on whether the tribe has solved the no-forum problem by providing a tribal forum for the resolution of important disputes.