Western District of Washington – Page 22

2. Plaintiff, Skokomish Indian Tribe, brings this action to protect the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands, guaranteed by Article 4 of the Treaty of Point No Point of January 26, 1855, (“Privilege”). 12 Stat. 933.
3. Plaintiff, Skokomish Indian Tribe’s territory as related to the Privilege of hunting and gathering includes:
a. All lands within the Twana territory; and
b. All lands within the ceded area boundaries established in Article 1 of the Treaty of Point No Point of January 26, 1855 (12 Stat. 933); and
c. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Plaintiff, Skokomish Indian Tribe’s Reservation; and
d. All lands within Plaintiff, Skokomish Indian Tribe’s traditional use areas; and
e. All other lands not within the exclusive hunting and gathering territories of other Indian tribes or bands recognized by the Secretary of the Interior.
(“Territory”).

Federal Court Dismisses Lower Elwha Tribe from Challenge to Elwha Fish Hatchery

February 19, 2013February 18, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the updated materials in Wild Fish Conservancy v. National Park Service (W.D. Wash.):

126 -ORDER GRANTING TRIBAL MTN TO DISMISS

114 – Tribal Mtn to Dsm – Subject Matter

116 – US Response Tribe Motion Dismiss

117- WFC Response Tribal Motion Dismiss

119 – LEKT Reply to Response – Mtn to Dismiss

Prior posts with materials are here, here, here, and here.

Thurston County Response to Chehalis Request for Judicial Notice of Federal Leasing Regs

February 18, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Thurtson County Response to Motion for Judicial Notice

The motion is here.

Chehalis Asks Ninth Circuit to Take Judicial Notice of New Interior Regulations re: Taxability of Trust Land Improvements

February 5, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the motion in Confederated Chehalis Tribes v. Thurston County Board of Equalization:

Chehalis Motion to Take Judicial Notice

The federal regs are here. 25 CFR 162.017 reads:

Subject only to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on the leased land, without regard to ownership of those improvements, are not subject to any fee, tax, assessment, levy or other charge imposed by any State or political subdivision of a State. Improvements may be subject to taxation by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.

Briefs are here. Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Amends Miller v. Wright Panel Opinion

January 14, 2013January 14, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

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.

Federal Court Stays ICRA Habeas re: ICW Matter Pending Exhaustion of Tribal Court Remedies

December 14, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order in Jones v. Lummi (W.D. Wash.):

DCT Order on Tribal Court Exhaustion

An earlier order in this matter is here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity from Antitrust Claims relating to Tribal Tax Agreement

November 13, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here is the opinion and materials in Miller v. Wright.

The court’s syllabus:

Affirming the district court’s dismissal of an antitrust action brought by cigarette vendors challenging taxes imposed by virtue of the authority vested in an Indian tribe, the panel held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in light of the tribe’s sovereign immunity. The panel held that the tribe did not implicitly waive its sovereign immunity by agreeing to dispute resolution procedures nor by ceding its authority to Washington State when entering into a cigarette tax contract. The panel also held that federal antitrust law did not explicitly abrogate tribal immunity, and the Sherman Antitrust Act was not a law of general applicability vis-a-vis the tribe. The panel held that tribal officials were protected by the tribe’s sovereign immunity because they acted pursuant to the tribe’s authority. The panel also affirmed the district court’s alternative ruling that the action was barred by res judicata in light of prior litigation in state and tribal courts.

Here are the briefs:

Miller Opening Brief

Puyallup Answer Brief

Miller Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.