tribal sovereign immunity – Page 86

1. Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin activity that violates IGRA but takes place outside of Indian lands.

2. Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a tribe from violating IGRA outside Indian lands.

Sixth Circuit materials here.

My earlier views on why this petition isn’t going anywhere are here. I would add now that since Bay Mills, as I understand it, hasn’t re-opened the casino, and since the State filed an amended complaint way back when, there doesn’t seem to be much pressure to grant this particular petition. Also, if this is really an IGRA fight over an allegedly illegal casino, it’s really the federal government’s fight. In fact, NIGC already referred the matter to the federal prosecutors … a while back. Michigan is trumping up an alleged compact violation that might not even exist. There might be a compact violation, or not, but the State in its petition doesn’t even point to which provision in the compact BMIC is violating (maybe they did, but I didn’t see it).

Eleventh Circuit Affirms IRS Authority to Issue Subpoenas of Miccosukee Records

October 15, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States.

An excerpt:

This appeal presents three issues: (1) whether the Miccosukee Tribe may assert tribal sovereign immunity to quash summonses issued to third-party financial institutions by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to obtain tribal financial records relevant to an ongoing tax investigation; (2) whether the Commissioner issued the summonses for a proper purpose; and (3) whether the Tribe has standing to bring an overbreadth challenge to summonses issued to third parties and, if so, whether the summonses were overbroad. In 2010, the Commissioner issued four summonses to third-party financial institutions to determine whether the Tribe had complied with its federal withholding requirements during the period from 2006 to 2009. The Tribe petitioned to quash the summonses on the grounds of sovereign immunity, improper purpose, relevance, bad faith, and overbreadth. The district court denied those petitions. Because we conclude that tribal sovereign immunity does not bar the issuance of these third-party summonses, the district court did not clearly err when it found that the summonses were issued for a proper purpose, and the Tribe lacks standing to challenge the summonses for overbreadth, we affirm.

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Suit over Coalbed Methane Ownership Dispute on Tribal Immunity Grounds

October 15, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Farmer Oil & Gas Properties v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe (D. Colo.):

DCT Order Granting Southern Ute Motion

Southern Ute Motion to Dismiss

Farmer Oil Response

Southern Ute Reply

Update in Navajo Dine CARE v. Salazar Suit re Navajo Mine — Additional Update (11/6/12)

October 12, 2012November 6, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the updated materials:

Complaint post

Navajo Intervention and Motion to Dismiss post

Diné CARE Response

Navajo Reply

Update: FINAL 2012-10-18 Dine C.A.R.E.,et al. v. Salazar Not. Supp. Auth.

Update in Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Miwok

October 11, 2012October 11, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The tribe here is appealing a state court trial decision holding that a jury should determine whether the tribe’s waiver of immunity was “reasonable.” There are other issues as well (for example, the NIGC issued an opinion on the underlying contract that the state trial court disregarded on various grounds). Here are the materials in Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (Cal. App.):

2009-11-17 Ruling re Motion to Dismiss

2012-10-10 Tribes Opening Brief

Prior post on this case here.

Furry v. Miccosukee Cert Petition: State Dram Shop Actions and Immunity

October 2, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Furry Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Does Justice Brandeis’ opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919) support the concept of tribal sovereign immunity or should that accidental doctrine, questioned in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998), be revised and discarded, at least in the context of tribal alcoholic beverage commercial activities?

2. Do Title 18 U.S.C. § 1161 and Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), exclude tribal alcoholic beverage endeavors from sovereign immunity protection?

3. Does tribal sovereign immunity preclude a suit against an Indian Tribe which has obtained a state liquor license and has operated an alcoholic beverage facility pursuant to that liquor license and in the process has violated state law subjecting a license holder to liability?

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Remands Tribal Gaming Lease Dispute to State Court

October 2, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Apache Tribe of Oklahoma v. TGS Anadarko (W.D. Okla.):

DCT Order Remanding to State Court

Prior materials were here.