Here:
Miccosukee Response to Cypress
Miccosukee Response to Hernandez
Miccosukee Response to Lehtinen
Miccosukee Response to Lewis & Tein
Miccosukee Response to Martinez
Motions to dismiss were here.
Second amended complaint here.
Additional pleading:
Here are the materials in Santana v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation:
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Lee (D. Ariz.):
DCT Order Granting Salt River Project Motion
Salt River Project Motion for Summary J
This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, materials here.
For more background on the Navajo Preference in Employment Act, see Howard Brown and Ray Austin’s excellent article here.
Here:
2013-01-28 Appellee Cherokee Nation Petition for Rehearing (without attachments)
Panel materials here.
The D.C. Circuit has had few, if any, en banc hearings in the last few years because the court is severely understaffed. There have been, however, a rash of dissents from denial of en banc petitions which serve as a sort of marker for later review. Worth it to see if anything happens here.
Here are the Tenth Circuit briefs so far in State of Oklahoma v. Hobia:
Brief Amicus Curiae State of NM (filed 1-25-13) (W1843673)
State of Michigan Amicus Brief
Filed Brief of the Appellee (1-25-13) (W1843503)
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials so far in Rape v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians:
Update: Hildreth Motion for Leave to File Amicus [Escambia County]
The case arises from a jackpot claim at the tribal casino.
Here are the materials in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.):
RST Cross Motion for Summary J
An excerpt:
Colombe now asks this Court to rule on the sole remaining issue from this Court’s September 23, 2011 Opinion and Order: Whether the Tribal Court had jurisdiction to hold that the oral modification to the NIGC-approved management contract was void. Colombe argues that the NIGC has the sole, exclusive authority to determine whether modifications to NIGC-approved management contracts can have any legal effect. Doc. 49 at 6-7. Colombe also argues that Defendants’ Tribal Court suit is prohibited because IGRA does not authorize a private cause of action. Doc. 49 at 8. Defendants counter that the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Supreme Court had jurisdiction to rule on the legal validity of the oral, unapproved modification to the approved management contract after Colombe raised the modification as a defense in the Tribe’s underlying contract suit. Doc. 59; Doc. 60. Defendants also assert that its Tribal Court suit is not for a “claimed IGRA violation” and therefore does not need to be authorized by the IGRA. Doc. 57 at 19.
Here are the materials on the Sept. 2011 order, and on the motion for reconsideration.
Here is the opinion in Outsource Services Management v. Nooksack Business Corporation:
And the briefs:
Outsource Services Management, Respondent v. Nooksack Business Corporation, Appellant
Case Number – 67050-6
Hearing Date – 09/20/2012
You’ll recall the panel opinion here found that tribal employees have no official immunity for official actions.
Here are the en banc petition materials:
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Amicus Brief
Maxwell Response to En Banc Petition
Maxwell Supplemental Authorities Letter
The petition is still pending, but perhaps the Miller v. Wright amendment is evidence that the Ninth Circuit could take this case for en banc review.
Here is the amended opinion.
Our post on the prior opinion is here.
The single amendment is to eliminate this footnote:
4. Neither in the district court nor on appeal do Miller, Lanphere, and Matheson allege a separate and distinct claim for injunctive or declaratory relief against the officials qua officials. See Maxwell, —- F.3d —-, 2012 WL 4017462, at *11. We therefore express no opinion as to the viability of such a claim against the officials themselves.
An en banc petition in the Maxwell case is currently pending.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.