Federal

June 15, 2010: Hydro Resources v. US EPA and Navajo Nation

En banc Tenth Circuit divides 6-5 over what is the proper standard for identifying a dependent Indian community under federal law.

June 7, 2010: 9th Cir. Order - Rincon v Schwarzenegger

The petition for rehearing en banc is therfore DENIED

April 9, 2010: Mr. David Patchak v. Sec. Salazar

A non-Indian man is asking D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate his land-into-trust lawsuit. David Patchak, a former official from Wayland, Michigan, sued the Interior Department over the acquisition of 147 acres in trust for the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, also known as the Gun Lake Tribe. Among other issues, he claims the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar bars the acquisition. The decision restricts the land-into-trust process to tribes that were "under federal jurisdiction" when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed in 1934. The Gun Lake Tribe didn't gain recognition until 1999. In a ruling last August, Judge Richard Leon didn't address that issue. Instead, he determined that Patchak, as a private citizen, lacked standing to challenge the land-into-trust application. Patchak is appealing the dismissal of his lawsuit and has filed his initial brief with the D.C. Circuit. The Department of Justice and the tribe, as intervenor, have filed responses The National Congress of American Indians has filed a friend of the court brief in the tribe's favor.

April 2010: Onieda Indian Nation v Madison County

We conclude that the Onieda Indian Nation is immune from the Counties' foreclosure actions under the principle that "[a]s a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity." it seems very unlikely the Supreme Court will agree to grant a petition for cert in Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison County. To be sure, the question whether tribal sovereign immunity can prevent foreclosure actions against tribally-owned fee lands is certworthy, and there may already be a split in authority of sorts, i.e. (the Second Circuit and the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court in a case involving the Aquinnah Wampanoag a few years back). On the the last page two of the three judges who ruled unanimously in this case basically make a plea for the Supreme Court to revisit two key Indian law cases that protect tribes from lawsuits.

April 20, 2010: Rincon Band of Luseno Mission Indians v. Arnold Schwarzenegger

April 20, 2010 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of Rincon. In the State of California's appeal from the district court's holding that the state violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which provided that a state must negotiate in good faith with its resident Native American tribes to reach compacts concerning casino-style gaming on Native American lands, because the state's repeated insistence that a tribe pay a portion of its net revenues into the state's general fund constituted an attempt by the state to impose a tax on the tribe in violation of 25 U.S.C. section 2710(d)(4).

March 24, 2010: Rincon v Governor Schwarzenegger

Court Orders Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgement - more slot machines!

March 5, 2010: Osage Nation v. Constance Irby Secretary, member of the Oklahoma Tax Commission etc.

The Nation sought a declaratory judgment that the nation's reservation, which comprises all of Osage County, Oklahoma has not been disestablished and remains Indian country and thus, tribal members residing there are exempt from state taxation. The pivotal issue in this case is whether the nation's reservation has been disestablished.

Feb. 23, 2010: Order Granting Motion to Intervene

Restoration by stipulated judgment: For the reasons discussed below, the motions to intervene will be granted, the motions to dismiss will be denied, and the motions to vacate the judgment will be held in abeyance.2 Proposed Intervenors’ request to certify the jurisdictional issue for interlocutory appeal will be granted, as will their request to stay further proceedings and execution of the judgment to the extent that the judgment allows for land to be taken into trust by the Secretary of the Interior. The stay will remain in effect pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal or until further order of the Court.

Feb. 8, 2010: POLO AND POSY v Pacific Regional Director BIA

Opening Brief

June 5, 2009:Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley

Complaint for Declaratory and Injuntive Relief - Tribe is seeking federal recognition through a stipulated judgement.

Wells Fargo v LAKE OF THE TORCHES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Court Documents Case No. 09-CV-768 Final Decision issued U.S. Western District Court Judge Rudolph T. Randa dismissed the bank’s lawsuit, which was filed against the Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corporation (EDC). Randa found that the trust indenture dated Jan. 1, 2008 was a management contract that was executed without the prior OK of the National Indian Gaming Commission, which rendered the agreement “null and void.” At issue are $50 million in bonds purchased in 2008 by Saybrook Capital of California, which sought to force the tribe into receivership after it defaulted on the bonds.

Dec. 24, 2009: Fort-Independence v. Governor Schwarzenegger

Order to proceed in bad faith challenge.

Dec. 22, 2009: Desenrolled Members vs. Pechanga Tribe

The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider this claim, because Appellants were not detained.

Dec. 9, 2009: Video Gaming Technologies v. Bureau of Gambling Control

Court Order to remove illegal Bingo Machines.

Nov. 2009: North County Community Alliance v. NIGC Cert Petition

The Ninth Circuit held last month that IGRA does not require the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to determine whether a gaming ordinance contemplates a gaming operation on “Indian lands” prior to (1) approving an ordinance that does not specify a site for the casino or (2) the tribe’s licensure and construction of a casino. In essence, the Ninth Circuit determined that enforcement of the Indian lands requirement of IGRA may only be undertaken by the NIGC and states – not private citizens like the North County Community Alliance (“Alliance”).

Nov. 2009: Wolfchild v. United States Cert Petition

This is not a ruling nevertheless, the questions presented are provocative: 1. After Carcieri, whether federal court subject matter jurisdiction exists over Native American beneficiary claims of purported federal government violations of the 1934 IRA or other applicable federal statutes when post-1934 IRA non-tribal community governments are involved. 2. Whether the Federal Circuit’s holding of “statutory use restrictions” in Congressional Appropriation Acts establishing statutory obligations on the United States, but no “trust,” departs from applicable statutory interpretation and trust principles set forth in United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) and its progeny. 3. Whether the Federal Circuit’s holding that a 1980 Congressional Act terminated a trust impermissibly conflicts with the First Circuit’s decision in Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1979) in that the Federal Circuit failed to consider the 1934 IRA’s extension of all Native American trusts under 25 U.S.C. § 462 and failed to apply the “clear and unambiguous requirement” for a trust termination act.

Oct. 23, 2009: Chairman Salgado Indictment

 

August 10, 2009: New York Business Alliance v. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar

Land

August 4, 2009: Bressi v. Ford

Police officers for Native American tribes do not have the same authority to stop and question non-Indians traveling on state roads within the reservation as they do tribal members, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. The judges said roadblocks set up on state roads are permissible — but only to the extent that the stop is limited to determine if the person is an Indian. Judge William Canby Jr., writing for the unanimous court, said if there are "obvious violations,'' like driving drunk, tribal police officers may detain the person for eventual delivery to state officers.

May 2009: Mesa Grande v. SOI Ken Salazar

Reservation boundary dispute with Santa Yasbela

May 2009: James B. Hicks v Tiltware, LLC

Fulltilt Poker (defendants) operates an internet gambling website across state lines, by which the defendants solicit consumers to play poker for money on the www.fulltilt.com websit. Internet gambling is unlawful within California, including without limitation through the www.fulltilt.com website.

April 2009: Bill T. Sweet v Maryanne Hinzman

In a legal first, tribal members have been victorious in Federal court challenging a tribal banishment action. On April 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by nine Snoqualmie Tribal members challenging a banishment imposed by the government of the Snoqualmie Tribe in May last year. The Court held that the Tribe's government violated the Petitioners' due process rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act and vacated the full banishment. As a result, the Petitioners' membership in the Tribe, as well as their benefits, are restored. The Court also imposed a time restriction on a pre-existing social banishment that prevented the Petitioners from coming onto tribal land and attending tribal events. The Court reduced the open-ended social banishment to 90 days, further vindicating and protecting the tribal members' Indian civil rights. The decision comes after the first trial held in Federal court under the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act seeking relief from a tribal banishment action. This is the first Federal court decision to overturn a banishment after trial upon a finding of a denial of due process. Tribal banishments and disenrollments have been increasing in frequency in recent years. The decision could have profound effects on the way tribal governments treat their tribal members, hopefully leading to greater respect for Indian civil rights.

April 2009: UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. NAVAJO NATION

Opinion of the Court ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT [April 6, 2009]

Feb. 2009: Carcieri v. Salazar

Tribes not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 cannot follow the land into trust process of the Indian Reorganization Act.

June 2008: Plains Commerce Bank v Long Family Land and Cattle Co.

Tribal court lacks jurisdiction against non Indians on Indian fee lands.

April 2008: Michigan Gambling Opposition v SOI Kempthorne

Decided April 29, 2008, US District Court - District of Columbia. Of interest in this case is the dissenting opinion of Judge Brown. Beginning at page 18 - BROWN, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: "I join Parts I and II of the court’s opinion, but I cannot agree § 5 of the IRA is constitutional. Consequently, I dissent from Part III."

March 2008: Indian Educators Federation v. Dirk Kempthorne

At issue in this case is the scope of Section 12 of the IRA of 1934, 25 USC Section 472 (1976) and whether the Act mandates employment preferences for American Indians employed in any position in the Interior Department that directly and primarily relates to the provision of service to American Indians.

Feb. 2008: ALASKA, PETITIONER v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE

"A dependent Indian community requires a showing of federal set aside and federal superintendence. These requirements are to be construed broadly and should be informed in the particular case by a consideration of the following factors: 1. the nature of the area; 2. the relationship of the area inhabitants to Indian tribes and the federal government; 3. the established practice of government agencies toward the area; 4. the degree of federal ownership of and control over the are; 5. the degree of cohesiveness of the area inhabitants; and 6. the extent to which the area was set aside for the use, occupancy, and protection of dependent Indian peoples."

Nov. 2007 House of Reps v. Governor of Florida

Florida House of Reps filed suit against the Governor of Florida for negotiating and attempting to enact without ratification of the state legislature a tribal state compact that violated state gaming laws.

August 2007: Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas v. Sec. of Interior

August 17, 2007: This is a high-stakes litigation involving a challenge to the procedures adopted by the Secretary of the Interior to circumvent the consequences of the Supreme Courts 11 Amendment decision.

July 2007: Apache Tribe of Oklahoma v. USA

The Court concludes that because it is not apparent from the administrative record that the proper determinations were made with regard to the Chickasaw off-track wagering compact, that this matter should be remanded to the Secretary for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Secretary and the NIGC are instructed to determine whether the land in Marlow Oklahoma that is the subject to the Compact is “Indian land”under IGRA and should consider the applicability of § 2719 to the parcel.

Feb. 2007: San Manuel v U. S. Labor Board

The court ruled in favor of the U. S. Labor Board having oversight of labor issues at this tribal casino. Federal courts are making it increasing clear that Native American tribes are not going to be allowed to engage in businesses indistinguishable from those operated by non Indians free from regulatory laws which non Indian competitors are subject too.

Oct. 2006: Colorado River Indian Tribe v NIGC

“The District Court had held that IGRA does not authorize the NIGC to promulgate or enforce its Minimum Internal Control Standards (MICS) against Class III Indian gaming. The District Court reasoned that IGRA directs Tribes and States to negotiate the regulatory roles for Class III gaming through the compacting process, and limits the NIGC’s role over Class III gaming to audit review and ordinance oversight and approval.” View related items:Stand Up For California Alerts the Governor, CGCC, Senator Feinstein.

March 2005: Sherill vs. Onieda

This case resolved a taxation issue specific to the Oneida and the City of Sherill. However, the Supreme Court Justices provided significant legal guidance in the opinion steering the legal requirement for land to be taken into trust. The Secretary of the Interior must give grave consideration to the non tribal population and the regional area that have justifiable expectations that the land remains similar in character regarding zoning, jurisdiction and critical health and safety issues.

Sept. 2004: Relation Back Doctrine

While this GAO report concentrated on conflicts with utility Rights-of-way not being resolved through existing remedies with regards to Alaska native Allotments, the court decisions cited in the report have an impact elsewhere in Indian Country. "Once the preference right becomes vested, the preference relates back to the initiation of occupancy and takes preference over rights of way or other uses of the land filed subsequent to the commencement of use and occupancy by the Native. Thus where a Native allotment application was filed after a highway right of way was issued, the native allotment 'related back' and nullified the right of way that had already been granted."

May 2004: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, Defendant,state of Michigan

Indeed, the only evidence of intent strongly suggests that the thrust of the IGRA is to promote Indian gaming, not to limit it. See 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1) (providing that the purpose of the statute is to provide a statutory basis for gaming by Indian tribes "as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments"). Although § 2719 creates a presumptive bar against casino-style gaming on Indian lands acquired after the enactment of the IGRA, that bar should be construed narrowly (and the exceptions to the bar broadly) in order to be consistent with the purpose of the IGRA, which is to encourage gaming. Cf. City of Roseville v. Norton, 348 F.3d 1020, 1030-32 (D.C.Cir.2003) (holding that the "restoration of lands" exception should be interpreted broadly because the IGRA's exceptions "embody policies counseling for a broader reading" due to the statute's general purpose of promoting tribal economic development and self-sufficiency; also applying the Indian canon of statutory construction to resolve any ambiguities in favor of a broad reading of the "restoration of lands" exception).

July 2003: State of Oregon vs. Confederated Tribes of Coos Bay

Both the Grand Traverse and this ruling go to the heart of the "restored lands" analysis. In sum, I find that the phrase "restoration of lands" was not intended by Congress to be narrowly construed and limited to the lands included in the congressional enactments which restore tribal status. Therefore, the Secretary's interpretation is a permissible and reasonable construction of the statute.

April 2004: United States v. Lara

 

April 2004: CETAC v. Norton.

United States District Court: Civil Action No. 02-1754 (TPJ) CETAC challenged the adequacy of the Tribe's EA analysis in several respects and disputes the conclusions of the Secretary of the Interior that the project will have no significant impact. The court rules in favor of CETAC. This is a significant win for environmental protections.

2003: INYO COUNTY v. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS

 

2003: Artichoke Joe's v SOI Gale Norton

Proposition 1A is consistent with the intent of IGRA and does not impair petitioners equal protections under the law.

Jul 2001:Campo v USA and City of San Diego

A coalition of San Diego Tribes alleged a claim to the Navy Training Center as aboriginal lands. Suit originally filed in District Court in Washington DC Dec. 18, 1998.

2001: Nevada v. Hicks (2002) 121 S. Ct. 2304

The decision relied on two previous rulings, Montana v. U.S. and Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe. The Supreme Court held that the tribal court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate state officials conduct in executing a search warrant to a tribal member for an off reservation crime. More importantly, the Supreme Court in regards to the jurisdictional reach of tribal courts over non members, stated: "...tribal courts, it should be clear, cannot be courts of general jurisdiction in this sense, for a tribe's inherent adjudicative jurisdiction over non members is at most only as broad as its legislative jurisdiction." Id. At. 2314." Absent a federal law providing tribal court jurisdiction over a particular cause of action, tribal courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate actions over non-tribal

1998: Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v Manufacturing Technologies

An Indian tribe is entitled to sovereign immunity from suit on a promissory note even if it is signed off of the reservation. An Indian tribe's immunity follows the tribe not the reservation lands. While the Supreme Court drew the bounds of tribal immunity it also noted that Congress can alter its limits through explicit legislation.

March 1997: Confederated Tribes of Siletz v. US

The Siletz Tribe sued the governor of Oregon for refusing to concur. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Governor. Tribes promoting gaming off-reservation under Section 20 do not have the legal authority to 'obligate' the Governor to concur with the Secretary of the Interior. The governor's concurrence is an exercise of "executive powers" on an infrequent and episodic basis. The law merely says that the Governor may concur ~if the Governor does not concur, the tribe does not get a tribal state compact.

March 1996: Seminole v. State of Florida

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Indian tribes cannot sue states under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in federal courts without state permission. In other words the tribes cannot force states to negotiate gaming compacts. The decision was based on the 11th Amendment to the constitution which provides that a state can only be sued in its own courts or if it consents to the suit. Basically, states have a sovereign immunity from lawsuits filed in federal courts and Congress cannot abridge that immunity through passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

August 1995: RUMSEY INDIAN v WILSON

This case was of major significance and ruled on the issue of whether the tribe can have slot machines because the lottery operates similar games. This case was decided for the tribe, but appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth circuit held for the state and decided that Indian tribes cannot offer banked games such as slots.

1987: CALIFORNIA v. CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, 480 U.S. 202

Landmark case that has transformed Indian Country and its peoples. Gaming is a civil regulatory activity and thus tribes exercise governance over this activity. Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 to regulate and permit gaming on Indian lands. IGRA made certain requirements on Tribes and States for class III gaming.

1981: Montana v United States, 450 U.S. 544

The case ruled over both the criminal and civil position of tribal government authority. Tribal governments do not have civil regulatory jurisdiction over non-Indian activities on fee lands or owned lands inside of tribal reservations. Tribes simply do not have full regulatory authority over non-Indians. Moreover, the Supreme Court is reading this case broadly stating that tribes do not have inherent jurisdiction over non-Indians civil matters at all although tribal governments may regulate hunting and fishing on trial lands. There are two exceptions in this ruling: 1. Citizens who enter into contracts with tribes are bound and under tribal jurisdiction. 2. Or the civil activity o non-Indian citizens threatens the political integrity of the tribal government or the health or security of the Indian government.

(1978) Oliphant v Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191

The case simply ruled that tribes have no inherent criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.

June 27, 1978: Coast Indian Community Appeal

Coast Indian Community unpublished decision (not precedent) the court allowed the award of money to be distributed to the Coast Indian Community entity, but only because the individual Indians had so stipulated upon remand. Thus, where no tribe was identified, named, or designated on the original deeds for the Rancherias, it would still require a new deed to be created by the original/surviving beneficiaries to transfer the property to a subsequently recognized/organized tribe.

Feb. 23, 1977: Coast Indian Community

U. S. Court of Claims: Coast Indian Community v. United States 550 F.2d 639 (Ct. Cl. 1977), the individual Indians are the beneficial owners of the property, and the tribe has never been recognized to lawfully “exercise governmental power,” as defined by IGRA, over the property.

March 27, 1973: MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE v. JONES, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF REVENUE