Here is the complaint in United States v. Enbridge Energy (W.D. Mich.):
Western District of Michigan
Federal Court Issues Order in Little Traverse Reservation Boundaries Case Bifurcating Merits and Remedies Phases
Here is the order in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Snyder (W.D. Mich.):
91. 2016-07-06 Opinion and Order Bifurcating Case and Granting Denying Plf’s MSD
An excerpt:
“‘Only Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries,’ and its intent to do so must be clear.” Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072, 1078–79 (2016) (quoting Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 470 (1984)). Even when a reservation exists and has not been diminished, however, a “long delay in seeking equitable relief . . . [can] evoke the doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, and render inequitable the piecemeal shift in governance [a] suit seeks unilaterally to initiate.” City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 221 (2005); cf. Parker, 136 S. Ct. at 1082 (citing Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 217–221) (“Because petitioners have raised only the single question of diminishment, we express no view about whether equitable considerations of laches and acquiescence may curtail the Tribe’s power to tax the retailers of Pender in light of the Tribe’s century-long absence from the undisputed lands.”).
These two principles frame the dispute this motion presents: May equitable defenses lie in this lawsuit? To best answer this question and organize this case, bifurcation is appropriate. In the first phase, which will address the existence and diminishment of a reservation, equitable defenses cannot lie. If necessary, the Court will revisit the dispute at the second, remedial phase.
Here are the briefs:
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Sues over Michigan Sales & Use and Tobacco Taxes
Here is the complaint in Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Khouri (W.D. Mich.):
Federal Court Dismisses Individual Tribal Member’s Attempt to Invoke Treaty Rights
Here are the materials in Turunen v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):
56 DCT Order to Show Cause re Rule 19
66 Plaintiff’s Response to Tribes
67 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
An excerpt:
Plaintiff, Brenda Turunen, is a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), a federally recognized Indian tribe in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula that is the successor-in-interest to the L’Anse and Ontonagon bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. In 1842, the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians signed a treaty with the United States of America, 7 Stat. 591 (the 1842 Treaty), in which the Indian signatories ceded large portions of the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan, but reserved “the right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy.” 7 Stat. 591.
Plaintiff owns property that is within the “ceded territory” at issue in the 1842 Treaty. Plaintiff asserts that the “the usual privileges of occupancy” reserved by the KBIC on the ceded territory included commercial farming and animal husbandry. Based on that interpretation of the 1842 Treaty, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that she may—as a member of the KBIC—raise animals free from state regulation on her property within the ceded territory.
Plaintiff’s claim rests on the twin propositions that the KBIC retained certain rights in the 1842 Treaty, and that she may exercise such rights based on her membership in the KBIC. Although the Court must determine the scope of the rights retained by the KBIC to resolve Plaintiff’s claim, the KBIC is not a party to this action. Thus, the Court previously sought briefing from the parties regarding whether the KBIC should be joined pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and whether the case should be dismissed if the KBIC could not be joined. After the parties responded, the Court—at Plaintiff’s urging—ordered Plaintiff to notify the KBIC of the pending action and the opportunity to intervene. The KBIC followed up to that notification with a letter to the Court stating that it would not intervene in the action, and further urging that the action be dismissed under Rule 19. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the matter should be dismissed.
We have posted on this matter here, here, here, here, and here.
Federal Felony Information re: Former GTB Employee
Here is the pleading in United States v. Buchanan (W.D. Mich.):
From the GTB press release:
November 24, 2015, Peshawbestown, Michigan. On November 23, 2015, the United States filed a “Felony Information” against the former Information Technology Director of GTB, Michael Buchanan, alleging embezzlement from an Indian tribal organization, 18 U.S.C. 1163. The Felony Information is the result of extensive investigatory work by GTB’s Police Department in cooperation with the FBI. GTB anticipates that Mr. Buchanan will be arraigned on Monday at 2:00 p.m. in the Federal District Court in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The alleged scope of GTB’s loss is extensive, $233,176.12, which is the value of computer equipment purchased by Mr. Buchanan and resold to third parties over the time period 2008-2012. GTB anticipates that Mr. Buchanan will not contest the charges. Further information will be provided after the arraignment and further criminal court proceedings.
Little River Band Sues Blue Cross Blue Shield over Hidden Fees Assessed in Violation of ERISA
Here is the complaint in Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and Its Employee Welfare Plan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (W.D. Mich.):
Grand Traverse Band Defeats Preliminary Injunction in Fifth Federal ICWA-Related Case Challenging Michigan’s ICWA Law
After initially granting a TRO based on an ex parte motion, the Western District of Michigan denied the requested preliminary injunction. The underlying complaint arguing the transfer provisions of the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (Michigan’s ICWA law) are unconstitutional. We are collecting documents in this case here.
Michigan Answer to LTBB Reservation Boundaries Complaint
Federal Court Dismisses Michigan’s Challenge to Sault Tribe’s Lansing/Wayne County Gaming Trust Land Application
Opinion here.
Court documents previously posted here.
There is no constitutional tort in play. There is no underlying federal or state law criminal prohibition. There is nothing wrong in principle with filing a land in trust application. To the contrary, such a filing would normally be protected First Amendment activity. The only thing the filing allegedly violated here was a bilateral promise – a contract. Extending Ex parte Young to such a theory would open federal courts to routine breach of contract claims that can and ordinarily should be resolved in the state Court of Claims (when a state contract is at issue), or whatever forum the parties choose for themselves in the case of a tribal contract. Here, the parties did negotiate expressly over both the issues of sovereign immunity and dispute resolution. They concluded in their Compact that neither side was agreeing to waive sovereign immunity, and negotiation and arbitration would be the preferred methods of dealing with disputes.
Prisoner Suit against Sault Tribe (and many others) Dismissed under Prison Litigation Reform Act Screening
Here is the order in Fleming v. Manistique Public Safety (W.D. Mich.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.