Here is the opening brief:
TribeMotionCOA SubstituteBrief (3)
Sault Tribe CA6 Substitute Brief
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opening brief:
TribeMotionCOA SubstituteBrief (3)
Sault Tribe CA6 Substitute Brief
Lower court materials here.
Featuring “Steve” Matthew Fletcher. Here.
An excerpt:
Thorpe: What is likely to be the next step in this process and when might it take place?
Fletcher: The next step is to litigate the Section 9 question; that is, whether it applies at all because of MILCSA and, if so, whether it forecloses the fee to trust application. I was surprised that Judge Jonker shut down Sault Tribe this early in the process, but it really hurts the tribe. Had Sault Tribe put in their application, the federal government is a party. And especially if Interior took the land into trust, suddenly the United States is a defendant, and they’re much more difficult to defeat than a mere Indian tribe. And no one is better suited to know the implications of an injunction at this early date than Judge Jonker, with all his experience litigating against the United States in Indian gaming cases.
Thorpe: If you were a betting man, what would you say are the odds of the Lansing casino ever being built, at least be the current proposed ownership team?
Fletcher: Flip a coin. Sault Tribe, because of its advantageous position as a result of MILCSA, has the best chance of any tribe. But the Section 9 problem may shut it all down. Moreover, all it takes is one rider in an Interior appropriations bill to undercut that provision.
Here is the complaint in Turenen v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources (W.D. Mich.):
An excerpt:
Plaintiff is a family farmer and a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) residing and farming in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Plaintiff has been raising crops and livestock for the past 23 years on land located in the territory ceded to the United States of America via the 1842 Treaty between the United States and the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 7 Stat. 591 (the 1842 Treaty). Plaintiff’s farming operations are conducted pursuant to rights reserved in Article II of the 1842 Treaty and pursuant to a license from KBIC. Plaintiff’s treaty-protected farming activities are being threatened by the policies and activities of Defendants which seek to destroy a certain agri-industry in the State of Michigan, so-called hunting estates. To achieve this questionable goal Defendants have sought to prohibit Plaintiff’s pigs through an Invasive Species Order which literally can be applied to any pig in existence. Further, Defendants’ policies make no provision for Plaintiff’s treaty-protected farming activities and Defendants’ seek to impose their regulatory schemes upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff invokes this Court’s jurisdiction in order to protect her treaty reserved right to farm within the territory ceded to the United States by the 1842 Treaty.
Here are the materials in Rock v. United States (W.D. Mich.):
DCT Order Dismissing Rock Complaint
Federal Motion to Dismiss 1st Amended Complaint
Horrid story.
Here are the new materials in State of Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (W.D. Mich.):
Michigan Reply in Support of Motion for PI
Michigan Response to SSM Motion to Dismiss
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians filings:
2012-12-21 Amicus Brief with Exs.
2012-12-21 Memorandum in supportof Motion to file an amicus brief
2012-12-21 Motion to file an amicus brief
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe filings:
Previous materials are here (complaint and motion for PI) and here (Sault Tribe’s responsive pleadings).
The tribe has moved to dismiss and to oppose the State’s request for a preliminary injunction.
Sault Tribe Response to Motion for PI
The complaint is here.
News coverage is here.
Here is the petition:
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari MI v BMIC
Better pdf here: Michigan v Bay Mills Cert Petition
Questions Presented:
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).
You must be logged in to post a comment.