 |
| |
Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States
2010 WL 774325
No. 2009-5084
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, March 9, 2010
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Hoopa Valley Tribe, on its own behalf and acting as parens patriae, and twelve members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe (collectively, Hoopa Valley) appeal from a final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims. See Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 430 (2009). The Court of Federal Claims held that Hoopa Valley lacks standing to challenge the distribution of trust funds to the Yurok Tribe, and the court entered judgment in favor of the government. For the reasons set forth below, we agree that Hoopa Valley lacks standing but vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss Hoopa Valley's complaint without prejudice.
*Holding: not yet available
Morris v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2010 WL 761075
No. 07-9505
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, March 8, 2010
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion)The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) issued Hydro Resources, Inc. (“HRI”) a license to conduct in situ leach mining for uranium on four sites in northwest New Mexico. In this case, Petitioners-Eastern Diné Against Uranium Mining, a Navajo community organization, Southwest Research and Information Center, a non-profit environmental education organization, and two local ranchers, Grace Sam and Marilyn Morris-seek review of the NRC's licensing decision. Petitioners assert that the NRC, in issuing HRI's license, violated two federal statutes-the Atomic Energy Act (“AEA”), which sets forth specific requirements that an applicant must meet before obtaining a license, and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), which requires, in more general terms, that an agency give a “hard look” to the environmental impact of any project or action it authorizes.
*Holding: not yet available
Related News Stories: 10th Circuit split on uranium activity on Navajo Nation (Indianz.com) 3/9/10.
Osage Nation v. Irby.
2010 WL 745718
No. 09-5050
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, March 5, 2010
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff-Appellant the Osage Nation (“the Nation”) appeals from the grant of summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees. The Nation sought (1) a declaratory judgment that the Nation's reservation, which comprises all of Osage County, Oklahoma, has not been disestablished and remains Indian country within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1151; (2) a declaratory judgment that Nation members who are employed and reside within the reservation's geographical boundaries are exempt from paying state income tax; and (3) injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from collecting income tax from such tribal members.
*Holding: not yet available
City of New York v. Golden Feather Smoke shop, Inc.
2010 WL 724707
No. 09-3942-cv (L), 09-3997-cv (CON)
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, March 4, 2010
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: City brought action against businesses and proprietors that sold cigarettes on Native American reservation land, seeking injunctive relief, penalties, and damages under the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA) and New York's Cigarette Marketing Standards Act (CMSA). After denying defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on grounds of tribal sovereign immunity, 2009 WL 705815, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Amon, J., 2009 WL 2612345, granted the city a preliminary injunction that enjoined the sale of untaxed cigarettes other than to members of the reservation's nation for their personal use. Defendants appealed.
*Holding: The Court of Appeals, Hall, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) city was not required to make a showing of irreparable harm to obtain a preliminary injunction under either the CCTA or the CMSA, and
(2) certification of questions to the New York Court of Appeals was warranted to resolve the issue of whether the provisions of New York's tax code imposing a tax on cigarettes and setting up a tax-exempt coupon program for cigarette sales on Native American reservations either individually or in combination imposed a tax on cigarettes sold on reservations when some or all of those cigarettes might be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe.
Questions certified.
United States v. Washington
2010 WL 293112
No. 08-35794
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, January 27, 2010
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: Indian tribe moved to reopen judgment, 476 F.Supp. 1101, that had denied tribal members treaty fishing rights on ground that tribe had not maintained organized tribal structure. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, J., denied relief. Tribe appealed. The Court of Appeals, 394 F.3d 1152, reversed. On remand, the District Court, Ricardo S. Martinez, J., 2008 WL 6742751, again denied relief. Tribe appealed.
*Holding: The Court of Appeals, en banc, Canby, Circuit Judge, held that federal recognition obtained by Indian tribe was not extraordinary circumstance that warranted reopening of previous denial of treaty rights.
Affirmed
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Washington
590 F.3d 1020
No. 07-35061
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, January 5, 2010
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: Upper Skagit Tribe filed request for determination that Saratoga
Passage and Skagit Bay were not within Suquamish Tribe's usual and accustomed
fishing grounds and stations in Puget Sound, as established by federal
government's treaties with tribes of Pacific Northwest and as adjudicated over
three decades previously in government's underlying suit against State of
Washington. The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Ricardo S. Martinez, J., 2007 WL 30869, granted Upper Skagit Tribe
summary judgment. Suquamish Tribe appealed.
*Holding: On rehearing, the Court of Appeals, Kleinfeld, Circuit Judge, held
that Suquamish Tribe's treaty right, as adjudicated by district court, was not
intended to include Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay.
Affirmed.
|
|
|
|
A service of the National Indian Law Library of the Native
American Rights Fund
January |
February |
March |
April |
May | June
| July
|
August |
September | October
| November
|
December
Text highlighted in blue
are links to information available on the Internet free of charge.
Text highlighted in green are
links to information available on Westlaw, for the convenience of
those who have a Westlaw account. Please contact the National Indian
Law Library if you need help obtaining legal documents.
The National Indian Law Library and Native American Rights Fund are not
affiliated with Westlaw. See www.westlaw.com for
more information about the Westlaw legal databases.
* Synopsis and holding provided under an agreement with Westlaw.com
www.westlaw.com
|
|
