Eighth Circuit Briefs in Wolfchild v. Redwood County/Kaardal Sanctions Appeal

Here:

Counties Brief

Kaardal Sanctions Brief

Landowners Brief

Landowners Sanctions Brief

Lower Sioux Indian Community Brief

Pro Se Amicus Brief

Wolfchild Opening Brief

Wolfchild Sanctions Brief

Lower court materials here, here, and here.

Federal Court Imposes $200K Appeal Bond on Wolfchild Appeal

Here are the relevant materials in Wolfchild v. Redwood County (D. Minn.):

208 Lower Sioux Community Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions

291 DCT Order

Materials on the court’s dismissal of the claim are here.

Federal Court Applies Sherrill Defenses, Tribal Immunity to Dismiss Wolfchild Statutory Land Claims

Here is the order in Wolfchild v. Redwood County (D. Minn.):

196 DCT Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

An excerpt:

The Court finds no basis upon which to distinguish this case from those asserted in Sherrill or Stockbridge. It is clear that Plaintiffs’ claims flow from the 1863 Act. It is also clear that the land at issue here was sold to third parties no later than 1895. See Wolfchild IX, 731 F.3d at 1293. Plaintiffs’ claims are thus like those described in Stockbridge: “Indian land claims asserted generations after an alleged dispossession that are inherently disruptive of state and local governance and the settled expectations of current landowners and are subject to dismissal on the basis of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility.” Id. 756 F.3d at 165.

There is no language in Sherrill or Stockbridge that would limit the holdings of those decisions to claims based on aboriginal title.

Based on the particular characteristics and history of the claims at issue here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are equitably barred. Application of the equitable bar set forth inSherrill does not require a balancing of equities between the parties. Instead, the equitable bar focuses on Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking relief, and the disruption that would result to settled and justified expectations regarding land ownership. Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 216‐17, 221(finding that “the Oneidasʹ long delay in seeking equitable relief against New York or its local units, and developments in the city of Sherrill spanning several generations, evoke the doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, and render inequitable the piecemeal shift in governance this suit seeks unilaterally to initiate”).

Briefs are here.

Motions to Dismiss Pleadings in re: Wolfchild Land Claims

Here are the materials so far in Wolfchild v. Redwood County (D. Minn.):

120 First Amended Complaint

156 Redwood County Motion to Dismiss

164 Landowners Motion to Dismiss

165 Lower Sioux Community Motion to Dismiss

168 Episcopal Diocese Motion to Dismiss

185 Wolfchild Opposition

189 Lower Sioux Reply

190 Landowners Reply

191 Episcopal Diocese Reply

192 Redwood County Reply

Land Claim Filed in Minnesota Federal District Court

Complaint here.
Press Release here.

The lawsuit speaks of the Minnesota 1862 Sioux revolt where Congress later helped to regain lands for the Mdewakanton who saved settlers and did not participate in the revolt. A never repealed February 1863 Act instructed the Secretary of Interior to set aside about 12 square miles of reservation land for the loyal Mdewakanton’s “for ever.” Because of white-settler hostility, the loyal Mdewakanton were not able to settle on those lands. But, the United States, although it never had the legal authority to transfer title, did so and sold the land to subsequent possessors. Thus, all subsequent land owners never had clear title to those Indian lands.