Here are the materials in City of Seattle v. Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court (W.D. Wash.):
Prior post here.
Washington Federal Court Orders Tribal Court Exhaustion in Sauk-Suiattle Dam Suit
Western District of Washington
Duwamish Sues for Federal Recognition
Snoqualmie v. Washington Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
- Whether the federal courts have the constitutional authority to unilaterally abrogate all rights guaranteed to an Indian tribe under a treaty with the United States absent congressional action.
- Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by applying issue preclusion to hold that Snoqualmie was not a party to the Treaty even though the Executive Branch expressly recognizes Snoqualmie as a Treaty party.
Lower court materials here.
Amicus briefs in support of the petition:
Washington Federal Court Orders Insurance Company to Exhaust Tribal Court Remedies
Here are the materials in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Cornelson (W.D. Wash.):
Judge Martinez Orders Trial in Stillaguamish U&A Subproceeding
Here are the new materials in United States v. Washington, subproceeding 17-03 (W.D. Wash.):
178 Stillaguamish Motion re Laches
191 Upper Skagit Response to 170
193 Stillaguamish Response to 179
194 Stillaguamish Response to 176
195 Stillaguamish Response to 174
204 Upper Skagit Reply in Support of 174
205 Tulalip Reply in Support of 176
Samish Indian Nation v. Washington Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
- Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and tribal sovereign immunity deprived the lower courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe’s claim, requiring dismissal on that ground under United States Supreme Court precedent including Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1996).
- Whether, under United States Supreme Court precedent including Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) and Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007), an issue preclusion dismissal is a merits dismissal and excluded from the threshold grounds among which a federal court may choose to dismiss a case before establishing its subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Whether, under United States Supreme Court precedent including Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007), jurisdictional issues in this case were not “arduous” or “difficult to determine” because the lower courts could readily determine that they lacked jurisdiction, such that those courts committed reversible error in bypassing determination of their subject-matter jurisdiction and proceeding to dismiss the case instead with prejudice on issue preclusion grounds.
Lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit Decides Adams v. Dodge [Nooksack]
Here is the unpublished opinion.
Briefs are here.
Sauk-Suiattle Moves to Dismiss Seattle’s Federal Court Effort to Prevent Tribal Court Proceeding to Continue
Here is the motion to dismiss in City of Seattle v. Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court (W.D. Wash.):
Prior post here.
City of Seattle Sues to Stop Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court Suit over Rights of Nature
Here are the materials in City of Seattle v. Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court (W.D. Wash.):
Tribal court suit here.
Sklallam Tribes’ Cert Petition over Lummi Nation U&A [U.S. v. Washington subproceeding 11-02]
Here is the petition in Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe v. Lummi Nation:
Question presented:
The question presented is whether the Ninth Circuit—in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts—properly abrogated the long-settled and original understanding of a central treaty term, without any legal or factual basis for doing so, and while redefining the boundary of a major body of water to accommodate its novel treaty interpretation.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.