Here are the materials in Rivera v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians (W.D. Wash.):
tribal sovereign immunity
Ninth Circuit Holds Tribal Workers May Be Sued for Money Damages for Official Actions
You read that right. A troubling case for tribal governments. Here the tribal workers were operating under a public safety cooperative agreement authorized under California statute in which the tribal government expressly reserved immunity.The facts truly are tragic — and bad facts make bad law. I’d say the fact that there’s a dissent is helpful, except our dissenter doesn’t object to the immunity holding.
The opinion in Maxwell v. County of San Diego is here. An excerpt:
In short, our tribal sovereign immunity cases do not question the general rule that individual officers are liable when sued in their individual capacities. We see no reason to give tribal officers broader sovereign immunity protections than state or federal officers given that tribal sovereign immunity is coextensive with other common law immunity principles. See Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58. We therefore hold that sovereign immunity does not bar the suit against the Viejas Fire paramedics as individuals. The Viejas Band is not the real party in interest. The Maxwells have sued the Viejas Fire paramedics in their individual capacities for money damages. Any damages will come from their own pockets, not the tribal treasury. See Alden, 527 U.S. at 757.
This is incredibly glib discarding of Ex parte Young should worry tribal governments everywhere.
Briefs are here:
Update in MM&A v. Yavapai-Apache Nation (Arizona COA Briefs)
Here are the appellate briefs in MM&A Productions v. Yavapai-Apache Nation:
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Title VII Complaint against Quinault
Here are the materials in Gilbertson v. Quinault Indian Nation:
Update in Vann v. Interior & Cherokee Nation v. Nash
The Cherokee Nation has voluntarily dismissed their claims against the feds in Cherokee Nation v. Nash:
Cherokee nation vs nash order 8 21 2012 feds
The feds have an outstanding counterclaim against the Nation and so they remain parties.
In the D.C. Circuit appeal, Vann v. Interior, here is Vann’s reply brief:
2012-08-30 Reply Brief of Appellants Marilyn Vann et al
Prior briefs are here.
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity in Contour Spa v. Seminole Tribe
Split Washington SCT Holds Tribes are Not Indispensable to Private Challenge to State-Tribal Tax Compacts
Here is the majority:
And the dissent:
And links to all the briefs:
85661-3 – Automotive United Trades Organization v. State of Washington et al.
Hearing Date – 01/12/2012
- Amici of a G C W, Et Al
- Amicus of a W B
- Amicus of Nfib, Et Al
- Amicus of W O M a
- Amicus of W P C
- Appellant Brief
- Auto’s Answer to Amici of Nfib, Et Al
- Reply
- Respondent Brief
- Respondent’s Answer to Amici Briefs
- Motion to Expand Record
- Reply in Support of Motion to Expand Record
- Response to Motion to Expand Record
- Statement of Additional Auth
MLive on the Bay Mills Vanderbilt Casino Case & Proposed Lansing Casino
Here.
An excerpt:
Bay Mills has a reservation located on tribal land in the Upper Peninsula’s Chippewa County on the eastern end of Lake Superior.
In 2010, the tribe used earnings from a land settlement trust to purchase 40 acres of land in Vanderbilt, a tiny town just north of Gaylord that’s located more than 100 miles south of the tribe’s main reservation.
The Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act says that land acquired with funds from a land trust “shall be held as Indian lands are held.” So Bay Mills used that language as legal authority to open a small casino in November 2010 in Vanderbilt. Continue reading
Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Tribal Election Dispute Question
Here are the materials in Eastern Shawnee Tribe v. Douthitt (N.D. Okla.):
DCT Order Denying CIO Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt from the opinion:
Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 16). Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case because plaintiff is asking the Court to resolve an internal tribal dispute. They also assert that they have not waived their sovereign immunity from suit and that plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed. Plaintiff responds that it is asking the Court to determine whether the Court of Indian Offenses for the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma had jurisdiction to decide an election dispute, and this is a federal question that can be decided by this Court. They also argue that defendants are not shielded from suit by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Federal Court Holds Cayuga Indian Nation Immune from Seneca County Property Tax Foreclosure Suit
Here are the materials in Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County (W.D. N.Y.):
This appears to be the same issue the SCT took up in Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation last year.
You must be logged in to post a comment.