Here:
Petition is here.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials so far in State of Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation (W.D. Wis.):
Here:
Questions presented:
1) Whether Congress’ waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity, under § 313(a) of the CWA, for enforcement of local stormwater management ordinances, for “any property” over which it has “jurisdiction,” applies to land taken into trust pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465.
2) Whether lands acquired by an Indian tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465, within its former reservation boundaries are, removed from state jurisdiction because, as the Seventh Circuit ruled, they are reclassified as “Indian Country.”
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. Village of Hobart:
An excerpt from Judge Posner’s opinion:
Nevertheless we can imagine an argument, built on our earlier example of the Village’s authority to deploy its firefighters on Indian parcels, for an exception of necessity—a common law graft onto the Clean Water Act—to the Oneida tribe’s exclusive authority over Indian land. But the Village doesn’t argue for such an exception; it doesn’t deny the feasibility of cooperative arrangements between it and the tribe, which has signed cooperative service agreements with other government bodies in the area.
So Hobart loses its case against the tribe. And there is another reason it must lose. Because federal law forbids states and local authorities to tax Indian lands, the tribe can’t be forced to pay the assessment decreed by the challenged ordinance if the assessment is a tax.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in DePerry v. Deragon (W.D. Wis.):
An excerpt:
Asserting a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), Raymond DePerry alleges in his amended complaint defendants fired him as the Executive Director of the Red Cliff Chippewa Housing Authority (“the Authority”) as a result of their conspiracy to interfere with the civil rights of the Authority’s tenants. Defendants, the Authority’s seven-member Board of Commissioners, responded with the instant motion to dismiss that complaint for failure to state a legally-cognizable claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court finds that DePerry’s amended complaint contains no allegation or inference of a conspiracy to deprive anyone of civil rights, nor of any class-based animus held by defendants, and will therefore grant defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Here are the opening briefs in Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin v. Village of Hobart (7th Cir.):
Hobart Reply TK
Lower court materials here.
Here.
This is an action by plaintiff State of Wisconsin (“the State”) pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d), to enjoin certain Class III gaming activities being conducted by defendant Ho-Chunk Nation (“the Nation”) at its DeJope facility in violation of the tribal-state Class III gaming compact between the parties.
Here.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) this case will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, provided plaintiffs submit to the court within 14 days from the date of this order definitive proof of Wisconsin citizenship of one or more of the members of LDF Acquisition, LLC; or
2) absent such proof, this case shall proceed to a telephonic status conference on April 2, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.
Previous coverage here.
A nice messy case:
Saybrook Opening Brief on Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Lake of Torches Opening Brief on Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Godfrey & Kahn Response on Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Lake of Torches Motion to Lift Stay
Saybrook Response to Motion to Lift Stay
The complaint is here.
A related state court complaint is here.
Here are the materials in State of Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation (W.D. Wis.):
DCT Order Denying Arbitration Award
News coverage here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.