|
|
August
Runyan v. River Rock Entertainment Authority
2008 WL 3382783
No. C 08-1924 VRW
United States District Court, N.D. California, August 8, 2008
Subjects: Jurisdiction ; United States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; Indian gaming -- Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Gambling on Indian reservations -- California; River Rock Entertainment Authority; River Rock Casino; Employees -- Dismissal of; Federal question.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendants' contend that the IGRA, 25 USC § 2701 et seq, and regulations issued thereunder completely preempt Runyan's state-law claims. As discussed above, complete preemption arises only in “extraordinary circumstances,” DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d at 1184, in which Congress has “clearly manifested an intent to convert state law claims into federal-question claims.”
*Holding: not yet available
Cobell v. Kempthorne
Westlaw cite not yet available
No. 96-1285
United States District Court, District of Columbia, August 7, 2008
Subjects: IIM (Individual Indian monies)
accounts; Beneficiaries; Breach of trust -- United States; Trusts
and trustees -- Accounting -- United States; Fiduciary accountability;
United States. Dept. of the Interior.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) My conclusions, after attempting to apply a suitably
adjusted set of equitable principles to the facts of this case,
are that plaintiffs have properly asserted a claim for
restitution; that this Court has both the jurisdiction and the
power to adjudicate that claim; and that the evidence supports an
award in the amount of $455,600,000, a number that is within the
range of the government’s own admitted “uncertainty” about the
amount necessary to restore the proper balance to the IIM trust.
I have rejected the plaintiffs’ claim of entitlement to an
additional sum representing “benefit to the government.”
This opinion –- indeed, this litigation –- neither
deals with nor resolves any claims that IIM account holders may
have for damages against the government.1 And it leaves for
another day the question of how and to whom the award should be
distributed.
*Holding: not yet available
Related News Stories: Judge rules Indians owed $455 million (Washington Post) 8/8/08
July
City of Vancouver v. Hogen
2008 WL 2940640
No. C08-5192BHS
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma, July 23, 2008
Subjects: Cowlitz Indian Tribe,
Washington; Indian gaming -- Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Washington;
Gambling on Indian reservations -- Washington (State); Indian
Country (U.S.) -- Defined; United States. Administrative Procedure
Act; United States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; United States.
Declaratory Judgment Act; Gambling -- Law and legislation --
Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Washington.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The City of Vancouver brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2210-2202, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. The City challenges Defendants' approval of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe's amended gaming ordinances on the grounds that the land on which the Cowlitz Tribe sought to conduct gaming did not constitute “Indian Lands” as defined by the IGRA and applicable regulations.
*Holding: not yet available
Miami Tribe v. United States
2008 WL 2906095
Civil Action No. 03-2220-DJW
United States District Court, D. Kansas, July 24, 2008
Subjects: Miami Tribe of Oklahoma --
Members; Indian allotments -- Miami Tribe of Oklahoma -- Members;
Conveyancing -- Federal supervision; Indian land transfers; United
States. Bureau of Indian Affairs; United States. Administrative
Procedure Act; Breach of trust -- United States; Trusts and trustees
-- United States.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendants assert two main arguments in their response to Miami Tribe's motion and in their Motion for Order Establishing Case Resolution Procedure. First, they argue that the Court should require Miami Tribe to exhaust its administrative remedies on remand before seeking judicial review of the BIA's October 23, 2007 decision. This would allow the BIA, through the administrative appeal process, to address Miami Tribe's objections to the Regional Director's October 23, 2007 decision and develop a full administrative record. They ask that the Court stay all further action with regard to Count I until the available administrative appeal procedures have been exhausted.
Second, they argue that, contrary to Miami Tribe's claim that Mr. Smith's interest in the land is held in trust, Mr. Smith's property interest in Miami Reserve to be transferred to Miami Tribe is held only in restricted fee status and is not trust property. They ask the Court to reject Miami Tribe's request that the Court enter any instruction that would require them to take Miami Reserve in trust.
*Holding: not yet available
PPI, Inc. v. Kempthorne
2008 WL 2705431
No. 4:08cv248-SPM
United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division, July 8, 2008
Subjects: Indian gaming -- Seminole
Tribe of Florida; Gambling on Indian reservations -- Florida; Intergovernmental
agreements -- Seminole Tribe of Florida; Intergovernmental agreements
-- Florida; United States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; PPI, Inc.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Under 5 U.S.C. § 704 of the Administrative Procedure Act, PPI seeks judicial review of the approval of the tribal-state compact that ostensibly allows the Seminole Tribe of Florida to conduct Class III gaming, specifically banked card games such as blackjack and baccarat. Named as defendants are Dirk Kempthorne, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, and George Skibine, in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs (collectively “federal defendants”). PPI is also suing the Governor of the State of Florida, Governor Crist, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for executing the compact in violation of PPI's rights under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1).
*Holding: not yet available
Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Hogen
2008 WL 2746566
No. 07-CV-0451S
United States District Court, W.D. New York, July 8, 2008
Subjects: Indian gaming -- Seneca Nation
of New York; Gambling on Indian Reservations -- New York (State);
United States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; Erie County (N.Y.);
Intergovernmental agreements -- Seneca Nation of New York; Intergovernmental
agreements -- New York (State); Quiet title actions; Parties to
actions.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County, et al. (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “CACGEC”), commenced this action on July 12, 2007, and filed a First Amended Complaint on November 28, 2007. (Docket No. 49, hereafter “Am. Compl.”) Plaintiffs challenge the National Indian Gaming Commission's (“NIGC”) decision to approve a Class III Gaming Ordinance that was enacted by the Seneca Nation of Indians (“SNI”) on June 9, 2007. The NIGC's approval permits the SNI to operate a gambling casino in the City of Buffalo on land the tribe purchased in 2005. Plaintiffs allege that certain determinations on which the NIGC based its approval are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law.
*Holding: not yet available
Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma v. Blue Tee Corporation
2008 WL 2704482
No. 03-CV-0846-CVE-PJC
United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma, July 7, 2008
Subjects: Blue Tee Corp.; Asarco Inc.;
Mining leases -- Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pollution --
Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Tar Creek (Okla. and Kan.);
Superfund sites -- Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; United States.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980; Sovereign immunity -- Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on December 10, 2003 against seven mining companies that operated in the former Tri-State Mining District. In the original complaint (Dkt.# 1), the Tribe and individual tribal members alleged claims of public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, strict liability, and fraud against the mining companies. The individual plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all former and current landowners of real property located within the historic boundaries of the former Quapaw reservation. The original complaint did not seek relief under CERCLA or allege any claim against the federal government or federal employee in his or her official capacity. However, paragraph two of the complaint stated that the Tribe intended to file a CERCLA claim against the United States and other defendants once the 60 day notice requirement of CERCLA had been satisfied.
*Holding: not yet available
Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians v. United States
2008 WL 2633967
Civil Action No. 07-0508-CG-B
United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division, July 2, 2008
Subjects: Federal recognition of Indian
tribes -- MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama; MOWA Band of
Choctaw Indians of Alabama -- Legal status, laws, etc.; Treaty
rights -- MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama; Limitation of actions.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The MOWA initiated this suit on July 17, 2007, seeking: 1) a declaration that it is an Indian Tribe to be recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, 2) review of the decisions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs denying the MOWA Federal Acknowledgment, and 3) a declaration that the MOWA is entitled to back payments of all federal monies that would have been paid to it if it had received Federal Acknowledgment.
*Holding: not yet available
MacArthur v. San Juan County
2008 WL 2627610
Civil No. 2:00-CV-584BSJ
United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division, July 2, 2008
Subjects: Health facilities -- On Indian reservations -- Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Health facilities -- Utah -- San Juan County; Employees, Dismissal of -- San Juan Health Services District; Utah Navajo Health Systems; Law -- Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah -- Application -- Non-members of a tribe; Civil jurisdiction -- Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs' counsel acknowledges the substance of the Tenth Circuit's ruling in this case, namely, that the Navajo tribal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants named in the interlocutory tribal court orders that Singer, Riggs and Dickson sought to enforce in this court. Counsel's objection to the proposed order-and indeed, many of plaintiffs' recent submissions to this court-raises a more fundamental question: how is it possible for the federal courts to diminish Navajo tribal court authority over non-Indians, particularly in the context of litigation in which the Navajo Nation is not a party? Counsel insists that neither this court nor the court of appeals has addressed this question in the opinions already issued in this case, and that the answer to this question casts serious doubt upon the validity and binding effect of the Tenth Circuit's judgment. If anything, plaintiffs argue, the legal status of the Navajo Nation, the federal government's fiduciary relationship with the Navajo Nation, and principles of res judicata require that the federal courts summarily enforce orders of the Navajo tribal courts without further examination or inquiry.
*Holding: not yet available
June
Pro Football, Inc. v. Harjo
2008 WL 2700897
Civil Action No. 99-1385 (CKK)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, June 25, 2008
Subjects: United States. Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board; United States; Trademarks -- United States; Washington
Redskins (Football team); Indians as mascots; Indians of North
America; Race discrimination; Laches; Limitation of actions.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Court has thoroughly considered the parties' briefs in connection with their renewed cross-motions for summary judgment as well as the exhibits attached thereto, and concludes that Defendant Romero's claim is barred by laches. The Court shall therefore GRANT Plaintiff Pro-Football's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of the applicability of laches to Defendant Mateo Romero's claim. In so doing, the Court again reiterates-as it did in its September 30, 2003 Memorandum Opinion-that this “opinion should not be read as [ ] making any statement on the appropriateness of Native American imagery for team names.”
*Holding: not yet available
Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States
82 Fed.Cl. 322
No. 06-917
United States Court of Federal Claims, June 23, 2008
Subjects: Trusts and trustees --
United States; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Breach of trust
-- United States; Tribal trust funds -- Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma -- Accounting; Disclosure
in accounting; Federal-Indian trust relationship.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought suit against the United States seeking damages for government's alleged breach of its fiduciary duties as trustee of its assets and property.
*Holding: The United States Court of Federal Claims, Charles F. Lettow, J., held that statute barring the Court of Federal Claims from exercising jurisdiction over a claim if the same claim is pending in another court was applicable to preclude jurisdiction.
Case dismissed.
Passamaquoddy Tribe v. United States
82 Fed.Cl. 256
No. 06-942 L
United States Court of Federal Claims, June 19, 2008
Subjects: Trusts and trustees; Breach
of trust -- United States; Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine; Jurisdiction
-- United States.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe filed suit against the United States seeking damages for breaches of trust. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
*Holding: The United States Court of Federal Claims, Bush, J., held that:
(1) district court complaint which was filed by plaintiff on the same day as complaint filed in the Court of Federal Claims was per se "pending" within meaning of statute divesting the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction to hear claims against the United States that are already pending in another court;
(2) suits were based on the same operative facts, triggering application of statute precluding concurrent jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims; and
(3) suits sought overlapping relief which was not distinctly different, thus satisfying "same relief" prong of analysis.
Motion granted.
Butte County, CA v. Hogen
2008 WL 2410407
Civil Action No. 08-519(HHK)(AK)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, June 16, 2008
Subjects: Indian gaming -- Mechoopda
Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California; Land into trust.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California is a federally-recognized Indian tribe that currently has no reservation or federally-protected lands. In 2001, the Tribe's casino developers purchased a 630-acre plot of land in Butte County, California (“Butte County”) on which the Tribe intends to pursue economic development through Indian gaming.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) provides that an Indian tribe may operate a casino offering Class II and Class III gaming so long as the gaming is conducted on Indian lands that qualify for gaming under IGRA and provided that the Class III gaming is in compliance with a Tribal Gaming Ordinance that has been approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”).
*Holding: not yet available
United States v. Washington
2008 WL 2474594
No. CV 9213, Subproceeding No. 89-305
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, June 13, 2008
Subjects: Fishing rights -- Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington; Fisheries -- Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Washington -- Defined.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Suquamish Tribe asks that the Court adopt and enforce a plan proposed by the Suquamish for the harvest of clams on tidelands leased by A & K Trust (“Trust”) at Chico Bay in Kitsap County, Washington. The Trust has opposed the motion. The Court heard oral argument on June 11, 2008, and the matter has been fully considered. For the reasons set forth below, the motion of the Suquamish Tribe shall be GRANTED.
*Holding: not yet available
Ute Distribution Corporation v. Secretary of the Interior of the United States
2008 WL 2323231
No. 2:95-CV-376
United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division, June 2, 2008
Subjects: Water rights -- Ute Indian
Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray
Reservation, Utah; Utah. Ute Partition and Termination Act; Water
rights -- Ex members -- Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation,
Utah; United States. Administrative Procedure Act; Ute Distribution
Corporation; Resource allocation -- Ute Indians.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This case arises out of the Secretary of the Interior's determination that tribal water rights of the Ute Indian Tribe were divided and distributed in 1961 pursuant to the Ute Partition and Termination Act (“UPA”). 25 U.S.C. §§ 677 et seq. Plaintiff Ute Distribution Corporation (“UDC”) has appealed the Secretary's decision, and the issue is now before the Court pursuant to the judicial review procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.
*Holding: not yet available
United States v. Menominee Tribal Enterprises
2008 WL 2273285
No. 07-C-316
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin, June 2, 2008
Subjects: United States. Bureau
of Indian Affairs -- Contracts; Breach of contract -- Menominee
Tribal Enterprises; Sovereign immunity -- Menominee Indian Tribe
of Wisconsin -- Officials and employees; United States. False Claims
Act; Fire extinction -- Contracts -- United States; Discovery (Law).
*Synopsis: (from the opinion)The Tribe, which is not a party to the lawsuit, argues that MTE's subpoena of Waukau is barred under the doctrine of tribal immunity because any information she may have on the matter is information she obtained in her official capacity as a member or Chairperson of the Menominee Tribal Legislature.
*Holding: not yet available
May
Sauk County v. United States Department of the Interior
2008 WL 2225680
No. 07-cv-543-bbc
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin, May 29, 2008
Subjects: Land into trust -- Ho-Chunk
Nation of Wisconsin -- Wisconsin -- Sauk County; United States. Indian Reorganization Act; United States. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Raising questions about the legality of the Indian Reform Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. § 465, and other matters, plaintiff Sauk County seeks review of a final action taken by the United States Department of the Interior under the Act. The department took into trust for defendant Ho-Chunk Nation approximately five acres of land located in Sauk County, Wisconsin. Plaintiff contends that the department's action was arbitrary and capricious, that the Indian Reorganization Act is unconstitutional and that the department wrongly denied plaintiff standing to challenge the finding that the action would have no significant impact under the National Environmental Policy Act.
*Holding: not yet available
Samish Indian Nation v. United States
82 Fed.Cl. 54
No. 02-1383 L
United States Court of Federal Claims, May 27, 2008
Subjects: Samish Indian Tribe, Washington -- Services for; Federally recognized Indian tribes -- Lists; Samish Indian Tribe, Washington -- Government relations -- United States.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought suit against the United States seeking compensation for benefits it would have received between 1969 and 1996, if it had been properly recognized by the federal government during that time period. Defendant moved to dismiss.
*Holding: The United States Court of Federal Claims, Sweeney, J., held that networks of statutes, regulations, and agency practices the underlie the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) system and the Indian Health Service (IHS) funding process do not provide money-mandating bases for jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act.
Motion granted in part.
Unalachtigo Band of the Nanticoke-Lenni Lenape Nation v. New Jersey
2008 WL 2165191
Civil Action No. 05-5710
United States District Court, D. New Jersey, May 20, 2008
Subjects: Unalachtigo Band of the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Nation; New Jersey; Indian reservations -- Shamong (N.J. : Township); Indian reservations -- Burlington County (N.J.); Nanticoke Indians -- Land tenure -- New Jersey; Indian land transfers -- New Jersey; Brotherton Indian Reservation (N.J.); Treaties – Interpretation and construction; Jurisdiction -- Burlington County (N.J.); United States. Trade and Intercourse Act.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff is an Indian tribe, albeit one that is unrecognized by either the State of New Jersey or the United States government. Instead, it is organized as a New Jersey non-profit corporation. It claims to be the successor in interest to an Indian group for which the Colony of New Jersey set aside a tract of land in Burlington County in 1758. This land came to be known as the Brotherton Reservation. Plaintiff alleges the State of New Jersey unlawfully sold the reservation in 1801 by failing to seek and receive congressional approval of the sale pursuant to the requirements of the Indian Nonintercourse Act, which is now codified at 25 U.S.C. § 177.
*Holding: not yet available
Nisqually Indian Tribe v. Gregoire
2008 WL 1999830
No. 08-5069RBL
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma, May 8, 2008
Subjects: Indian business enterprises
-- Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington;
Cigarettes –- Sales -- Taxation; Nisqually Indian Tribe of the
Nisqually Reservation, Washington; Cigarettes -- Sales -- Intergovernmental
agreements.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Nisqually seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin the taxation of sales of cigarettes at the Frank's Landing smoke shop, which is operated by the Skookum Creek Tobacco Company, an enterprise owned by the Squaxin Island Indian Tribe [“Squaxin”]. Nisqually claims that the cigarettes are improperly taxed and that sales are being made pursuant to an invalid Addendum to a cigarette tax compact between the State of Washington and Squaxin in violation of federal and state law. Nisqually also claims that the Addendum conflicts with an existing cigarette tax compact between the State and Nisqually.
*Holding: not yet available
Hansen v. Dohmen
2008 WL 2020343
No. 4:07CV3159
United States District Court, D. Nebraska, May 7, 2008
Subjects: United States. Indian Child
Welfare Act of 1978; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska -- Members;
Parent and child (Law); Trials (Custody of children) -- Nebraska;
Child welfare; Interracial adoption.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendant Linda Dohmen and other employees of the Nebraska Health and Human Services System violated the plaintiff's rights secured under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The plaintiff alleges she is the biological mother of Kenten Hansen, and that both she and Kenton Hansen are enrolled members of the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska.
The plaintiff alleges the defendants knew the plaintiff and Kenton Hansen were tribe members, yet they ignored this fact while initiating and overseeing a process that culminated in Kenton Hansen's adoption by a non-Indian family.
*Holding: not yet available
April
City of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc.
550 F.Supp.2d 332
No. 06-CV-3620 (CBA)
United States District Court, E.D. New York, April 30, 2008
Subjects: Cigarettes -- Labeling --
New York (State); United States. Contraband Cigarette Trafficking
Act; Distributors (Commerce) -- Cigarettes -- Taxation; Indian
business enterprises; Cigarettes -- Sales -- Taxation.
*Synopsis: City brought amended complaint against a group of cigarette wholesalers, alleging that they violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA) by shipping in excess of 10,000 unstamped cigarettes to reservation retailers who re-sold the cigarettes to the public. Defendants moved to dismiss.
*Holding: The District Court, Amon, J., held that:
(1) abstention was not appropriate;
(2) city did not lack capacity to bring suit against wholesalers as alleged state agents;
(3) city stated claim for violation of CCTA;
(4) city stated public nuisance claim; and
(5) tribes and state were not necessary parties.
Motions denied.
United States v. Papakee
550 F.Supp.2d 991
No. 06-CR-162-LRR
United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division, April 24, 2008
Subjects: Sentences (Criminal procedure); Criminal
actions arising in Indian Country (U.S.); Rape.
*Synopsis: Defendant was convicted, in a jury trial, of sexual abuse in Indian country.
*Holding: At sentencing the District Court, Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) four-level adjustment for use of force was warranted even though defendant was acquitted of aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country;
(2) conviction was a conviction for a felony and a crime of violence, warranting application of a career offender adjustment; and
(3) even if defendant was not a career offender, upward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was warranted.
Sentenced accordingly.
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States
2008 WL 1883170
No. 06-943L
United States Court of Federal Claims, April 24, 2008
Subjects: Tribal
trust funds -- Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
of the Salt River Reservation,
Arizona; Fiduciary accountability
-- United States; Beneficiaries;
Breach of trust -- United
States; Trusts and trustees
-- Accounting -- United States.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This is a tribal trust accounting case. It comes before the Court on the Government's motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1500, contending that the same claims were already pending in District Court when the instant Complaint was filed.
Having reviewed the parties' initial and supplemental briefs and weighed the documentary evidence and testimony presented by the parties, we find that the claims set forth in the Plaintiff's District Court Complaint were not pending for purposes of § 1500 when the instant Complaint was filed.
*Holding: not yet available
Gensaw III v. Del Norte County Unified School District
2008 WL 1777668
No. C 07-3009 TEH
United States District Court, N.D. California, April 18, 2008
Subjects: Indian children -- Education
-- California -- Del Norte County; Indian children -- Yurok Tribe
of the Yurok Reservation, California; Discrimination in education;
School closings -- California -- Del Norte County.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This matter came before the Court on April 14, 2008 on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs allege that the Del Norte County Unified School District, its Superintendent, and five members of its Board discriminated against Native American students on the basis of race and/or national origin by deciding to close middle school grades of Margaret Keating Elementary School, located on the Yurok Reservation in Klamath, California. Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Cal. Gov. Code § 11135. They seek an injunction requiring Defendants to reopen and maintain the middle school grades at Margaret Keating.
*Holding: not yet available
Birdnecklace v. Steele
2008 WL 1766720
No. CIV. 07-5008-AWB
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division, April 11, 2008
Subjects: Disputed elections -- Oglala
Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota
; Leadership disputes -- Oglala
Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff, William Birdnecklace, filed a pro se complaint alleging that defendants acted improperly in relation to the 2006 Oglala Sioux Tribe election of the tribe's council.
*Holding: not yet available
United States v. Oregon
2008 WL 1711525
Civil No. 68-513-KI
United States District Court, D. Oregon, April 8, 2008
Subjects: Fishing rights -- Wenatchi
Indians -- Icicle Creek (Wash.); Fishing rights -- Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Fishing rights
-- Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington;
Fishing -- Off Indian reservations -- Washington (State); Fishing
-- Columbia River.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The United States filed this suit in 1968 on behalf of certain Indian tribes, seeking to define the tribes' treaty rights to take fish at all usual and accustomed places along the Columbia River and its tributaries (“US v. Oregon”).
*Holding: not yet available
Nez Perce Tribe v. NOAA Fisheries
2008 WL 938430
No. CV-07-247-N-BLW
United States District Court, D. Idaho, April 7, 2008
Subjects: Steelhead (Fish) -- Protection;
Fishing rights -- Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Lewiston Orchard Project (LOP) is a series of reservoirs, dams, and canals that provides irrigation water to the Lewiston area. It is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and operated by the Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District (LOID).
The LOP withdraws water from creeks that are designated as critical habitat for the Snake River Basin steelhead, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These withdrawals degrade critical habitat by reducing flows during spawning season and drying up creek beds during summer months. The loss of this habitat has caused steelhead mortality to exceed reproduction in the drainages affected by the LOP.
This was of grave concern to the Nez Perce Tribe, as the steelhead play an important role in their culture. All of the drainages affected by the LOP lie within the Tribe's treaty fishing areas.
The BOR proposed a plan to improve the operation of the LOP by maintaining certain minimum flows in these critical streams. The ESA required that the plan be reviewed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to determine whether it complied with the ESA.
NOAA issued a Biological Opinion (BO) finding that the plan did comply with the ESA. The Tribe appealed that decision to this Court. In this decision, the Court finds that NOAA's findings are not supported by a reasoned analysis. There is no assurance that the minimum stream flows proposed by the BOR will improve habitat to promote both the survival and recovery of the steelhead, as required by the ESA. The Court therefore sets aside the Biological Opinion.
*Holding: not yet available
March
Garreaux v. United States
544 F.Supp.2d 885
No. CIV 07-3021
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division, March 31, 2008
Subjects: Cheyenne
River Housing Authority; Federal aid to housing; Building leases;
Fort Laramie, Treaty of, 1851; Mutual Help and Occupancy Agreement; United States. Federal Tort Claims Act; United States. Administrative Procedure Act.
*Synopsis: After Court of Federal Claims dismissed her complaint against government, Native American tenant who allegedly entered into agreement with housing authority to purchase dwelling brought suit against United States, Secretary of Department of Housing and Urban Development and Secretary of Department of Interior under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss.
*Holding: The District Court, Kornmann, J., held that:
(1) federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear FTCA claims, and
(2) tenant could not sustain claims under APA.
Motion granted.
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2008 WL 895830
No. CIV 02-4126
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division, March 31, 2008
Subjects: United States. Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; Human remains (Archaeology)
-- South Dakota; Sacred space -- South Dakota; United States. Water
Resources Development Act of 2000; Indian land transfers -- Yankton
Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota;
United States. Army. Corps of Engineers; Excavation -- South Dakota;
North Point Recreation Area (S.D.); Recreation areas -- Design
and construction; Real property -- Transfer; Land tenure -- Yankton
Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; United States. Administrative Procedure
Act.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Tribe alleges the Federal Defendants acted in excess of the statutory authority granted by Congress, and as an administrative agency and officers of such agency, their actions are reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act (“the APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 707(2)(A) and (C). In the Prayer for Relief, the Tribe seeks a declaration, pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 2201, that the transfer and leasing of the lands set forth above violated WRDA, and are, therefore, null and void. Another declaration the Tribe seeks is that the transfer and leasing did not remove these lands from the exterior boundaries of the Yankton Sioux Reservation. Mandamus relief is also requested, to require the Federal Defendants to cancel all deeds transferring the lands at issue and the lease of the Spillway Recreation Area. Injunctive relief, prohibiting the Federal Defendants from transferring any further Corps of Engineers' land to the State on the properties at issue in this action, is also sought by the Tribe. An award of reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees and costs, is sought under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
*Holding: not yet available
Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Ohio Department of Natural Resources
541 F.Supp.2d 971
No. 3:05 CV 7272
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division, March 31, 2008
Subjects: Fishing rights -- Ottawa
Tribe of Oklahoma; Hunting rights -- Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma;
Hunting -- Ohio; Fishing -- Ohio; Hunting -- Erie (Lake); Fishing
-- Erie (Lake); Treaty rights -- Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Laches.
*Synopsis: Ottawa Tribe filed complaint seeking right to fish and hunt in Ohio and on Lake Erie without restrictions from state department of natural resources (DNR). State filed motion for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Zouhary, J., held that:
(1) laches barred tribe's action to enforce treaties granting it exclusive hunting and fishing rights in northern Ohio;
(2) laches did not bar tribe's action to enforce treaties granting it fishing rights in Lake Erie; but
(3) any rights to fish on Lake Erie previously granted to tribe under Treaty of Detroit terminated upon ratification of Treaty of 1831.
Motion granted.
Related News Story: Tribe loses lawsuit for right to fish Lake Erie (The Toledo Blade) 4/3/08
Osage Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States
81 Fed.Cl. 340
No. 99-550 L
United States Court of Federal Claims, March 31, 2008
Subjects: Tribal trust funds -- Osage Tribe of Oklahoma; Fiduciary accountability -- United States; Beneficiaries; Breach of trust -- United States; Trusts and trustees -- Accounting -- United States; Mines and mineral resources -- Osage Tribe of Oklahoma; Revenue -- Osage Tribe of Oklahoma.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought suit against the United States alleging that government violated its duty as trustee of tribe's mineral estate by failing to collect all moneys due from tribal oil leases and to deposit and invest those moneys as required by statute and according to fiduciary duty owed to tribe. Government was found liable for breach of fiduciary duties, 72 Fed.Cl. 629. Subsequently, individuals who identified themselves as personal owners of allotted tribal shares moved to intervene. Plaintiffs filed motion to disqualify proposed intervenors' counsel.
*Holding: The United States Court of Federal Claims, Emily C. Hewitt, J., held that tribe's former counsel was disqualified from representing tribal headright owners who sought to intervene in suit.
Motion granted.
Indian Educators Federation v. Kempthorne
541 F.Supp.2d 257
Civil No. 04-01215(TFH)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 31, 2008
Subjects: Indian preference in hiring
-- United States; Employee selection -- United States; United States.
Dept. of the Interior.
*Synopsis: Organization representing employees of the Office of Special Trustee and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) sued the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, claiming that the Indian Reorganization Act mandated certain employment practices. Organization moved for summary judgment, and the Secretary moved motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Thomas F. Hogan, Chief District Judge, held that:
(1) term “Indian Office” meant positions in the Department of the Interior, whether within or without the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), that directly and primarily related to providing services to Indians, and
(2) declaratory relief to that effect was warranted.
Plaintiff's motion granted in part; defendant's motion denied.
Smith-Barrett v. Potter
541 F.Supp.2d 535
No. 05-CV-6354L
United States District Court, W.D. New York, March 31, 2008
Subjects: Indians of North America
-- New York (State) -- Employment; United States. Civil Rights
Act of 1964. Title 7; United States Postal Service -- Officials
and employees -- Promotions; Discrimination in employment -- United
States Postal Service.
*Synopsis: United States Postal Service (USPS) employee brought Title VII action against USPS alleging discrimination due to her gender and/or American Indian race. USPS moved for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, David G. Larimer, J., held that:
(1) American Indians and their descendants are protected from discrimination by Title VII;
(2) employee's non-membership in Indian tribe did not preclude her from bringing Title VII action alleging discrimination due to her American Indian race;
(3) USPS's proffered reasons for selecting Caucasian candidates for certain positions rather than employee were not pretext for racial discrimination; and
(4) USPS did not retaliate against employee in violation of Title VII.
Motion granted.
In re DeCora
387 B.R. 230
Bankrutpcy No. 06-11697-7
United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin, March 28, 2008
Subjects: Casinos -- Ho-Chunk Nation
of Wisconsin; Dividends -- Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin -- Members; Bankruptcy; Debtor and creditor.
*Synopsis: Trustee brought adversary proceeding against debtor and bank, seeking to avoid bank's security interest in debtor's right to receive tribal per capita distributions from tribal gaming revenues and compel turnover of postpetition funds received by bank.
*Holding: The Bankruptcy Court, Thomas S. Utschig, J., held that:
(1) tribe's payments to bank, under debtor's assignment, were made using funds belonging to debtor;
(2) bank's security interest was not perfected under tribal ordinances governing payment of per capita distributions; and
(3) bank's security interest was unperfected and could be avoided by trustee.
Security interest avoided.
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. Village of Hobart, Wisconsin
542 F.Supp.2d 908
No. 06-C-1302
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin, March 28, 2008
Subjects: Land tenure -- Oneida Tribe
of Indians of Wisconsin; Land tenure -- Hobart (Wis.); Real property
-- Sales -- Wisconsin -- Hobart.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief against village's condemnation of a portion of tribe's newly-acquired property and levy of a special assessment on such property. After village counter-claimed for declaratory relief, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, William C. Griesbach, J., held that:
(1) land within original boundaries of Indian reservation, which, after being conveyed by the United States to individual tribal members in fee simple, was transferred to third parties before being reacquired by the tribe, was subject to village's authority under Wisconsin law to condemn private land for public roadways and to charge against such land the costs of improvements, and
(2) tribe's claim that it was entitled to return of previously-paid assessment would be dismissed.
Judgment for village.
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Kleine
2008 WL 828093
No. 2:05-CV-224
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division, March 27, 2008
Subjects: Taxation – Law and legislation --
Michigan; Sales tax -- Law and legislation -- Michigan -- Application
-- Tribes; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community of L'Anse and Ontonagon
Bands of Chippewa Indians of the L'Anse Reservation, Michigan;
Intergovernmental agreements -- Taxation -- Michigan; Intergovernmental
agreements -- Taxation -- Tribes -- Michigan.
*Synopsis: Native American tribe brought action against state, state treasury officials, and secretary of state, alleging illegal enforcement of Michigan Sales Tax Act and Michigan Use Tax Act against tribe members. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
*Holding: The District Court, Gordon J. Quist, J., held that:
(1) tribe's claims challenging state's enforcement of sales and use tax acts as violation of federal law and alleging that tribe had right to perform its own offset were not barred by Eleventh Amendment;
(2) tribe did not have standing to seek declaratory judgment that any future offsets from federal funds owed to tribe, or any other attempts to collect previous tax assessments, would be unlawful;
(3) tribe's claims did not warrant issuance of declaratory judgment that tribe's own off-set of funds was lawful exercise of tribe's set-off rights under tribal law;
(4) tribe had standing to assert claims that tax offsets violated federal law against state treasury officials and secretary of state in their individual capacities; and
(5) tribe was not “person” under § 1983 for purposes of claims against individual officials of state treasury that tribe was not subject to state sales and use taxes.
Defendants' motion granted.
Smith v. Everson
2008 WL 818512
No. CV-06-0791 (SJF)(AKT)
United States District Court, E.D. New York, March 21, 2008
Subjects: Shinnecock Indian Nation
(N.Y.) -- Members -- Employment -- Off Indian reservations;
Income tax -- Shinnecock Indian Nation
(N.Y.) -- Members.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) On February 23, 2006, plaintiff Jonathan K. Smith (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Mark W. Everson, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue (defendant), seeking, inter alia, judgment declaring invalid defendant's assessment of taxes, penalties and interest on income earned purportedly on the Shinnecock Indian reservation for the year 2000.
*Holding: not yet available
Salmon Spawning and Recovery Alliance v. Lohn
2008 WL 782851
No. C06-1462RSL
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, March 20, 2008
Subjects: Fishing rights -- Tribes
-- Northwest, Pacific; Salmon fishing -- Puget Sound (Wash.); Puget
Sound Salmon Management Plan; Salmon fisheries -- Management; Chinook
salmon -- Protection; United States. Endangered Species Act of
1973; United States. Administrative Procedure Act; Salmon Spawning & Recovery
Alliance.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This case concerns a challenge to two decisions by National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) involving Puget Sound Chinook salmon: the approval of a resource management plan prepared by the Puget Sound Indian Tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (“WDFW”), and the biological opinion issued by NMFS regarding the effects of its decision to approve the plan.
*Holding: not yet available
Parks v. Tulalip Resort Casino
2008 WL 786673
No. C07-1406RSM
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, March 20, 2008
Subjects: Casinos -- Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington -- Officials and employees -- Promotions; Discrimination in employment -- Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington; Indians of North America – Mixed descent; Sovereign immunity -- Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington; United States. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title 7; Exhaustion of administrative remedies; Exhaustion of tribal remedies; Jurisdiction -- United States.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendant argues that Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because it possesses sovereign immunity from suit as a federally recognized tribe. Alternatively, Defendant argues that: (1) Tulalip Tribes is exempt from the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; (2) Plaintiff has not exhausted federal or tribal administrative remedies; and (3) Plaintiff has not exhausted his tribal court remedies.
*Holding: not yet available
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan
539 F.Supp.2d 924
Nos. 06-15024, 06-15637
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division, March 18, 2008
Subjects: Constitutional law -- Michigan;
Constitutional law -- United States; Michigan. Constitution; Affirmative
action programs -- Michigan; University of Michigan. Law School
-- Admission; Minorities -- Education (Higher) -- United States;
Equality before the law -- United States; United States. Constitution.
14th Amendment; United States. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Race.
Ethnicity.
*Synopsis: Pro-affirmative action organizations and others brought action against state universities, Michigan's Attorney General, and others, challenging amendment to Michigan State Constitution prohibiting State from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. University of Michigan students and others brought separate action against Michigan's Attorney General contending that amendment was unconstitutional as applied to public colleges and universities. Cases were consolidated, and various motions were filed.
*Holding: The District Court, Lawson, J., held that:
(1) state universities were properly joined as defendants in organizations' action;
(2) organizations lacked standing to assert claim that amendment violated First Amendment;
(3) amendment to did not have discriminatory purpose, and thus did not violate equal protection rights under conventional analysis;
(4) amendment did not violate equal protection rights of minority applicants under Hunter theory that amendment made it more difficult to use political process to their advantage; and
(5) amendment was not preempted by Title VI or Title IX.
Order accordingly.
Oglala Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
537 F.Supp.2d 161
Civil Action No. 01-2679 (GK)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 15, 2008
Subjects: Oglala Sioux Tribe of the
Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Missouri River Watershed;
Indian land transfers; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne
River Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the
Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Treaties -- Dakota Indians;
Land tenure -- Tribes.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought action against, inter alia, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief from decision, pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (WRDA), to transfer or lease certain lands and recreational areas to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. Order to show cause why case should not be dismissed was entered.
*Holding: The District Court, Gladys Kessler, J., held that:
(1) tribe lacked standing to challenge transfer of the lands, and
(2) mandamus relief was not appropriate.
Dismissed.
Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance
2008 WL 719215
No. CV08-0474-PHX-DGC
United States District Court, D. Arizona, March 14, 2008
Subjects: Leases -- Colorado River
Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona
and California; Leases -- Tribes -- Federal supervision;
United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs; Rent; Eviction; Jurisdiction
-- Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian
Reservation, Arizona and California; Water Wheel Camp Recreation
Area.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) On March 12, 2008, Plaintiffs Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area, Inc. and Robert Johnson filed an Emergency Application and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“TRO Application”). Dkt. # 8. Plaintiffs have been sued for eviction in an action pending in the Tribal Court of the Colorado River Indian Tribes (“CRIT”). Plaintiffs ask this Court to enjoin Defendants-a judge and clerk of the Tribal Court-from adjudicating the eviction action. Plaintiffs argue that the Tribal Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981). In particular, Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with a hearing today-March 14, 2008-in the eviction action.
*Holding: not yet available
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States
539 F.Supp.2d 152
Civil Action No. 07-812 (RMC)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 14, 2008
Subjects: Health services -- Menominee
Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; United States. Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act; Contracts -- United States; Breach
of contract; Medical care, Cost of.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe that operated health care system for tribal members pursuant to self-determination contract with Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) brought action against HHS, alleging breach of that contract. HHS moved to dismiss.
*Holding: The District Court, Rosemary M. Collyer, J., held that:
(1) tribe's claims fore certain years were barred by statute of limitations;
(2) tribes claim for certain year was barred by laches; but
(3) Secretary was not entitled to dismissal of claims for remaining years.
Motion granted in part and denied in part.
United States v. Smith
2008 WL 700320
Criminal No. 2:05CR201
United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Bryson City Division, March 13, 2008
Subjects: Restitution -- Members --
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; Profit-sharing
-- Members -- Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina;
Attachment and garnishment -- North Carolina -- Members -- Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; Casinos -- Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendant's two timely motions objecting to the garnishment of his gaming proceeds appear to be based on his belief that the garnished funds ought to be paid directly to Mignon Parker, the restitution payee named in Defendant's judgment, instead of to the Government...... The Court also addresses the Tribe's motion to quash, which is based on the Tribe's contention that it should be immune from garnishment because of its sovereign nature. Answer of the Garnishee. Indian tribes have traditionally been considered sovereign nations, possessing common law immunity from suit.
*Holding: not yet available
Kalispel Tribe of Indians v. Moe
2008 WL 687527
No. CV-03-423-EFS
United States District Court, E.D. Washington, March 12, 2008
Subjects: Real estate development;
Joint ventures; Racetracks (Automobile racing); Sovereign immunity
-- Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation, Washington.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' permissive counterclaims are barred by the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. (Ct. Rec. 165 at 7.) Defendants respond that Plaintiff waived its sovereign immunity in several ways, including by entering into the Joint Venture Agreement.
*Holding: not yet available
Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon Society v. Kempthorne
2008 WL 659822
No. CV 07-0038-PHX-MHM
United States District Court, D. Arizona, March 6, 2008
Subjects: United States. Fish and Wildlife
Service; Tribes -- Southwestern States; Eagles -- Protection
-- Sonoran Desert; Endangered species -- Protection.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs challenge the United States
Fish & Wildlife Service’s (“FWS”) August 30, 2006 finding denying Plaintiffs’ petition
to define the bald eagle population of the Sonoran Desert region of the American
southwest (“Desert bald eagle”) as a distinct population segment (“DPS”) and to list the
Desert bald eagle as “endangered” pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
*Holding: not yet available
Related News Story: Arizona tribes win ruling in eagle listing case (Indianz.com) 3/11/08
Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California v. Dickstein
2008 WL 648451
No. 2:07-cv-02412-GEB-EFB
United States District Court, E.D. California, March 5, 2008
Subjects: Investments -- Rumsey
Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California; Breach of contract;
Casinos -- Management; Lawyers -- Rumsey Indian Rancheria of
Wintun Indians of California; National Indian Gaming Commission
(U.S.).
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs allege that Opper and Dickstein “repeatedly involved the Tribe in complicated investments or transactions in which the business terms were more favorable to others than they were to the Tribe. Many such deals were fraught with self-dealing and conflicts of interest they failed to disclose.” Plaintiffs further allege that Opper
collected fees for purportedly managing Tribal assets, without actually managing them[, and] Opper's entire method and structure of compensation was an artifice created [by Opper and Dickstein] to avoid regulatory oversight of Opper's management of an Indian-owned gaming facility, which was illegal without the prior approval of the National Indian Gaming Commission.
*Holding: not yet available
February
Wagoner County Rural Water District No. 2 v. United States
2008 WL 559437
No. 07-CV-0642-CVE-PJC
United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma, February 26, 2008
Subjects: Sovereign immunity --
Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; United States. McCarran Amendment;
Water rights; Fort Gibson
Lake (Okla.); Water districts; Jurisdiction -- United States.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs claim instead that the “tribal sovereign immunity of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has been abrogated by Congress' enactment of the McCarran Amendment.”.....According to plaintiffs, “[b]ecause the Cherokee Nation's sovereign immunity is co-extensive with that of the United States and the McCarran Amendment waived the sovereign immunity of the United States regarding the adjudication of water rights, the sovereign immunity of the Cherokee Nation has also been waived.”
*Holding: not yet available
Kaltag Tribal Council and
Hudson and Salina Sam v. Jackson
Westlaw citation not currently available
No. 3:06-cv-00211-TMB
United States District Court, D. Alaska, February 22, 2008
Subjects: Parent and child (Law);
Trials (Custody of children) -- Alaska;
Indian children -- Legal status, laws, etc.;
Concurrent jurisdiction -- Adoption -- Tribes --
Alaska; Child welfare -- Alaska; United States. Indian Child Welfare
Act of 1978; Judgments, Foreign -- Kaltag, Village of (AK);
Jurisdiction -- Kaltag, Village of (AK);
Adoption -- Kaltag, Village of (AK).
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment requests a declaration that federally recognized
tribes in Alaska possess concurrent jurisdiction with the State to adjudicate adoptions of their
own tribal members, and that the State must therefore give full faith and credit to tribal
adoption orders pursuant to § 1911(d) of the ICWA. In addition, the motion seeks a declaration
that, since the tribal adoption decree of N.S. is entitled to full faith and credit under § 1911(d) of the
ICWA, the Sams, as the adoptive parents, are entitled to have N.S.’s adoption order recognized and
an amended birth certificate issued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
*Holding: not yet available
Related News Stories: Federal judge says tribal courts can supervise child adoptions (Anchorage Daily News) 3/11/08.
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin v. Kempthorne
535 F.Supp.2d 33
Civil No. 07-2210 (RJL)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, February 22, 2008
Subjects: Land into trust; United
States. Bureau of Indian Affairs; Indian gaming -- St. Croix
Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Casinos -- Off Indian reservations
-- St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought action challenging Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) indication that it would decide whether to take land into trust before considering tribe's application for approval of off-reservation casino. Tribe moved for preliminary injunction.
*Holding: The District Court, Leon, J., held that:
(1) tribe was not entitled to preliminary injunction, and
(2) letter from BIA indicating that it would rule on whether tribe could take land into trust before considering application was not "final agency action."
Motion denied.
Presley v. Edwards
2008 WL 495875
No. 2:04-CV-729-WKW
United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division, February 20, 2008
Subjects: Freedom of religion --
Indian prisoners; Indian prisoners -- Rites and ceremonies; Indian
prisoners -- Religion; Prisons -- Alabama; Alabama. Dept. of
Corrections; Religious articles.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Presley claims that Edwards violated ADOC policy by denying him access to his religious items. Presley points to Program Services Administrative Memorandum Number 5-98 (“Memorandum 5-98”), which governs what spiritual items inmates who practice Native American spirituality can possess.
*Holding: not yet available
Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation v. U.S. Department of Interior
2008 WL 450268
No. CV 07-0677-PHX-JAT
United States District Court, D. Arizona, February 15, 2008
Subjects: Quechan Tribe of the Fort
Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; United States.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; United States. National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966; Public land sales; Welton-Mohawk
Irrigation and Drainage District; United States. Welton-Mohawk
Transfer Act of 2000; United States. Administrative Procedure Act;
Energy development; Petroleum refineries.
*Synopsis: Quechan Tribe brought action against Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), irrigation and drainage district, and officers, challenging transfer of federal land to district. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, James A. Teilborg, J., held that:
(1) tribe waived right to challenge BOR's choice of action alternatives;
(2) BOR properly analyzed impacts of proposed oil refinery;
(3) BOR was not required to supplement draft environmental impact statement (EIS);
(4) BOR conducted proper analysis of cumulative impacts;
(5) BOR made reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties;
(6) BOR did not impermissibly segment Section 106 process;
(7) BOR properly consulted with affected tribes; and
(8) BOR properly analyzed area of potential effects upon historic properties.
Defendants' motion granted.
Reber v. Steele
2008 WL 444545
Civil No. 2:08-CV-051BSJ
United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division, February 14, 2008
Subjects: Hunting rights -- Ute Indian
Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah -- Members; Game
laws -- Utah; Poaching
-- Utah -- Uintah County; Deer hunting -- Indian Country (Utah);
Jurisdiction -- Utah; FIsh and game licenses -- Utah; Indians of
North America -- Defined; Indian Country (Utah) -- Defined.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) On
January 16, 2008, Colton Reber filed a petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his March 18, 2004 adjudication
as a delinquent by the Eighth District Juvenile Court, State
of Utah, where he avers he is currently awaiting sentencing.
According to Reber, the juvenile court found that he violated
Utah Code Ann. § 23-20-4(3)(a) (wanton destruction of protected
wildlife) during the 2002 deer hunting season by shooting and
killing a trophy buck mule deer within the exterior boundaries
of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation without a valid
State hunting license. Reber alleges that he is a member of
the Uintah Band of Indians, and that as such, he possesses
hunting rights that are counted among the various rights of
user reserved to the Band under the Executive Order of October
3, 1861, and the Act of May 5, 1864, ch. 57, 13 Stat. 64, which
set apart the Uintah Indian Reservation for their use and occupancy.
Reber asserts that the State of Utah does not have jurisdiction
to regulate or punish the exercise of his hunting rights as
a member of the Uintah Band within the reservation's boundaries.
*Holding: not yet available
Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp. v. Flyingman
2008 WL 425850
No. Civ-07-949-C
United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma, February 13, 2008
Subjects: United States. Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; Southwest Casino
and Hotel Corp.; Indian business enterprises -- Cheyenne-Arapaho
Tribes of Oklahoma; Exhaustion of tribal remedies.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendants argue that pursuant to the tribal exhaustion doctrine, the Court should either dismiss or stay some or all of Plaintiff's claims.
*Holding: not yet available
In re Schugg
384 B.R. 263
No. CV 05-2045-PHX-JAT
United States District Court, D. Arizona, February 12, 2008
Subjects: Roads -- Right of way
-- On Indian reservations; Gila River Indian Community of the
Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Bankruptcy; Land titles.
*Synopsis: Chapter 11 trustee of the bankruptcy estate of debtors, who had acquired land located within the boundary of Indian reservation, brought action against Indian tribe and allottees of Indian land, claiming right of access to debtors' land.
*Holding: The District Court, James A. Teilborg, J., held that:
(1) with respect to Indian tribe's counterclaim disputing legal access across its tribal land, United States was a required party, but not an indispensable party requiring dismissal of Chapter 11 trustee's action;
(2) laches prevented Indian tribe from denying debtors' estate access to Indian reservation road; and
(3) Indian reservation road was not a public road under 1866 statute establishing rights-of-way for highways constructed before its passage.
Judgment in accordance with opinion.
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. v. Kempthorne
537 F.Supp.2d 1
Civil Action No. 06-2173(CKK)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, February 11, 2008
Subjects: Aleutian/Pribilof Islands
Association -- Finance; United States. Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act; United States. Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act; The Aleut Corporation -- Finance; Alaska Native
corporations.
*Synopsis: Nonprofit that represented 13 tribal governments in Alaska, and was authorized to enter self-governance pacts with Secretary of the Interior to carry out programs, functions, services, and activities (PFSAs) pursuant to Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), brought action challenging Secretary's decision to provide to regional corporation created pursuant to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) monies which previously had been provided on yearly basis to nonprofit. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment, and Secretary also filed partial motion to dismiss.
*Holding: The District Court, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, J., held that:
(1) nonprofit did not fail to exhaust administrative remedies;
(2) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), in deciding nonprofit's request for ANCSA funds, had to apply criteria of ISDEAA and related regulations restricting government's discretion to decline Indian tribe funding proposals; and
(3) remand for further proceedings was appropriate remedy for BIA's arbitrary and capricious decision not to apply ISDEAA criteria in deciding nonprofit's funding request.
Ordered accordingly.
New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation
2008 WL 350934
Nos. 03-CV-3243 (JFB)(ARL), 03-CV-3466 (JFB)(ARL)
United States District Court, E.D. New York, February 7, 2008
Subjects: Reclamation of land -- New
York (State) -- Shinnecock Indian Nation, New York; Land tenure
-- Shinnecock Indian Nation, New York -- New York (State) -- Suffolk
County; Casinos -- Design and construction -- Shinnecock Indian
Nation, New York -- New York (State) -- Suffolk County.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) After conducting a bench trial, the Court held, by Memorandum and Order dated October 30, 2007 (the “October 30 Order”) that plaintiffs met their burden for declaratory and injunctive relief that prevents the development of a casino at Westwoods that is not in full compliance with New York and Town laws and regulations. See New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, Nos. 03-CV-3243, 03-CV-3466, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80443, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007). The Court further ordered that plaintiffs submit a proposed judgment and permanent injunction and that defendants submit any objections thereto. Id. at *354. After receiving these submissions, the Court ordered the parties to confer regarding defendants' objections to plaintiffs' proposed permanent injunction, and ordered plaintiffs to submit a letter to the Court regarding any objections remaining after these further negotiations. See Order dated November 16, 2007. By letters to the Court dated December 20, 2007 and December 21, 2007, respectively, plaintiffs and defendants described the remaining areas of dispute regarding plaintiffs' proposed language for the permanent injunction. In particular, the central dispute related to whether the injunction should be limited to the construction and operation of a casino or gaming on Westwoods, as defendants contend, or should permanently enjoin any activity on the Westwoods land that violates Town zoning laws, as the Town suggests.
*Holding: not yet available
January
Cobell v. Kempthorne
532 F.Supp.2d 37
Civil Action No. 96-1285 (JR)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, January 30, 2008
Subjects: IIM (Individual Indian monies)
accounts; Beneficiaries; Breach of trust -- United States; Trusts
and trustees -- Accounting -- United States; Fiduciary accountability;
United States. Dept. of the Interior.
*Synopsis: Following finding that Department of Interior breached of its duty under the Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act to produce an accounting for individual Indian money (IIM) account holders, 91 F.Supp.2d 1, affirmed by 240 F.3d 1081, bench trial was conducted for purpose of determining whether the Department of Interior had remedied or was remedying that breach.
*Holding: The District Court, James Robertson, J., held that Department of Interior's 2007 historical accounting plan did not satisfy Department's obligation under Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act to produce an accounting of individual Indian money (IIM) trust accounts.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law entered.
Allen v. Mayhew
2008 WL 223662
No. CIV S-04-0322-LKK-CMK
United States District Court, E.D. California, January 28, 2008
Subjects: Employees, Dismissal of --
Gold Country Casino (Calif.); Sovereign immunity -- Berry Creek
Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; Sovereign immunity --
Gold Country Casino (Calif.); Government agencies -- Tribes --
Defined; Jurisdiction.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) In this case, defendants claim they fall within the tribal sovereign immunity permitted to protect the Tribe and Casino from action because they are “officials” or “agents” of the Tribe and/or the Casino, and that plaintiff cannot circumvent the sovereign immunity by naming individual tribal officials or agents in place of the Tribe.
*Holding: not yet available
Ak-Chin Indian Community v. United States
80 Fed.Cl. 305
No. 06-932 L
United States Court of Federal Claims, January 25, 2008
Subjects: United States. Court of Federal
Claims; United States. District Court (District of Columbia); Jurisdiction;
Breach of trust -- United States; Trusts and trustees -- United
States; Leases -- On trust lands -- Ak Chin Indian Community of
the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought suit against the United States seeking damages for breach of trust obligations. Government moved to dismiss.
*Holding: The United States Court of Federal Claims, Hewitt, J., held that preponderance of the credible evidence supported conclusion that plaintiff's complaint in federal district court was filed after it filed a complaint asserting the same claim in the Court of Federal Claims, and thus statute divesting the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction over a claim against the United States which is pending in another court was not applicable.
Farmers Union Oil Company v. Guggolz
2008 WL 216321
No. CIV 07-1004
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Northern Division, January 24, 2008
Subjects: Accidents -- On Indian
reservations; Service stations -- Farmers Union Oil Company;
Jurisdiction -- Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South
Dakota; Law -- Tribes -- Application -- Non-members of a tribe.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) On Friday, December 29, 2006, the Ak-Chin Indian Community (the Community or plaintiff), a federally recognized Indian tribe, filed a complaint with this court (Court of Federal Claims complaint or CFC Compl.), seeking damages for breach by the United States of various trust obligations. CFC Compl. 1. On Friday, December 29, 2006, plaintiff filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a complaint (District Court complaint or DC Compl.) seeking to enforce the performance by the United States of various trust obligations. The District Court complaint appears in the record as Exhibit 1 to defendant's motion to dismiss.
*Holding: not yet available
United States v. Hunter
2008 WL 191981
No. C 06-565 SI
United States District Court, N.D. California, January 22, 2008
Subjects: Coyote
Valley Band of Pomo Indians
of California -- Officials
and employees; Credit cards.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) With the 2001 settlement agreement as background, the indictment alleges that on a date unknown but no later than May 2001 continuing to in or around December 2004, defendants stole and misapplied tribal and casino funds, and conspired to do so, by, inter alia, (1) using credit and debit cards issued to them and paid or funded by the Tribe for personal items; (2) purchasing first-class airplane tickets rather than coach or economy tickets; and (3) making political donations. The indictment also charges certain defendants with conspiracy to obstruct justice by allegedly altering and destroying Tribal and Casino records in 2003 to obstruct an NIGC investigation regarding the Tribe's and Casino's compliance with the 2001 settlement agreement. Finally, the indictment charges defendants Priscilla Hunter and Michelle Campbell with numerous counts of tax evasion and failure to file income tax returns between 1999 and 2003.
*Holding: not yet available
Harvest Institute Freedman Federation v. United States
80 Fed.Cl. 197
No. 06-907 L
United States Court of Federal Claims, January 15, 2008
Subjects: Land tenure -- Freedmen;
Treaties -- Chickasaw Indians; Treaties -- Choctaw Indians; Jurisdiction
-- United States.
*Synopsis: Ancestors of slaves owned by Indian tribes brought suit against the United States alleging that post-Civil War treaties between the United States and the tribes which prohibited slavery and gave freedmen equal rights as members of the tribes were breached when the tribes did not allocate land properly to freedmen under the treaties, and seeking the value of the land the tribes did not turn over to their ancestors.
*Holding: The United States Court of Federal Claims, Hodges, J., held that:
(1) continuing claims doctrine did not apply to running of statute of limitations on plaintiffs' claim, and
(2) plaintiffs failed to state a claim.
Judgment for defendant.
Quechan Indian Tribe v. United States
535 F.Supp.2d 1072
No. CIV 02CV1096 JAH AJB
United States District Court, S.D. California, January 10, 2008
Subjects: Right of way -- On Indian
reservations; Sacred sites -- Quechan Tribe of the
Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Land
tenure -- Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation,
California & Arizona; Right of property -- Quechan Tribe
of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona;
Electric lines -- On indian reservations; Irrigation projects.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against U.S. Government agencies involved in electrical transmission line pole replacement and line maintenance project on reservation, seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief based on alleged negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, trespass and public and private nuisance arising out of injuries to numerous cultural sites. Parties brought several cross-motions for summary judgment as well as various motions to strike.
*Holding: The District Court, John A. Houston, J., held that:
(1) FTCA administrative claim was not barred by the statute of limitations;
(2) doctrine of judicial estoppel precluded tribe from asserting that the U.S. did not own the right-of-way lands in fee simple;
(3) decision to undertake pole-replacement project was shielded by discretionary function exception to FTCA;
(4) agency's alleged failure to sufficiently disclose relevant information to tribe was not shielded by the discretionary function exception;
(5) agency's activities breached its duty to tribe, under California law, not to damage cultural sites;
(6) agency's activities inflicted severe and irreparable on one of tribe's cultural sites, as required in claim of negligence per se under California law; and
(7) agency's activities negligently impacted sites outside the right-of-way, as required in tribe's claim for trespass under California law.
Motions granted in part, denied in part, and denied as moot in part.
BGA, LLC v. Ulster County, New York
2008 WL 84591
No. 1:06-CV-0095 (GLS/RFT)
United States District Court, N.D. New York, January 7, 2008
Subjects: Federal recognition of Indian tribes -- Western Mohegan Tribe and Nation (New York); New York (State); Real property -- Taxation -- Western Mohegan Tribe and Nation (New York); New York (State); Public land sales -- New York -- Ulster County.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs, under the purported threat of imminent taxation and/or
foreclosure by the defendant, Ulster County, filed this action seeking a
judgment declaring, inter alia, that the Tribe is a sovereign Indian Nation, and that certain property in its possession constitutes “Indian Country”
which is exempt from taxation and foreclosure.
*Holding: not yet available
Freemanville Water System, Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians
2008 WL 80644
Civil Action No. 07-0688-WS-M
United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division, January 7, 2008
Subjects: Water treatment plants -- Design and construction -- Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama; Sovereign immunity -- Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama; United States. Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the
grounds of tribal sovereign immunity.
*Holding: not yet available
Mickel v. Wolff
2008 WL 80548
No. 3:79-cv-00239-LRH-VPC
United States District Court, D. Nevada, January 4, 2008
Subjects: Indian prisoners -- Religion
-- Protection; Prisons -- Nevada; Religious articles; Ceremonial
objects; Indian prisoners -- Rites and ceremonies -- Protection;
Freedom of religion -- Indian prisoners.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The named plaintiff in this action, Dennis T. Mickel,1 who was an inmate at Nevada State
Prison at the time of filing this lawsuit, alleged that he was denied the right to practice his Native
American religion in violation of the First Amendment.
*Holding: not yet available
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. Ute Distribution Corporation
2008 WL 60503
No. 2:06 CV 00557 DAK
United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division, January 3, 2008
Subjects: Stockholders -- Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Articles of incorporation -- Ute Distribution Corporation; Sovereign immunity -- Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Boards of directors. Stockholders -- Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Articles of incorporation -- Ute Distribution Corporation; Sovereign immunity -- Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Boards of directors.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The preliminary injunction order also recounts basic facts about the current dispute between the parties, arising out of proposed amendments of UDC's Articles of Incorporation. One of the proposed amendments “would prohibit all members, employees, consultants, and advisors of the Tribe from being nominated for or serving on the UDC Board of Directors.” While a preliminary injunction temporarily blocked adoption of the amendments, they were approved by a special shareholders' meeting in October 2006.
*Holding: not yet available
Susanville Indian Rancheria v. Leavitt
2008 WL 58951
No. 2:07-cv-259-GEB-DAD
United States District Court, E.D. California, January 3, 2008
Subjects: Health facilities -- Susanville Indian Rancheria, California; United States. Indian Health Service; Intergovernmental agreements -- United States; Intergovernmental agreements -- Susanville Indian Rancheria, California; Medical care, Cost of; Drugs -- Costs; Drugstores -- Finance.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Whether Defendants Lawfully Rejected the Tribe's Final Offer Based on the Concern that the Tribe's Pharmacy Program Would Result in Significant Danger or Risk to the Public Health.
*Holding: not yet available
Mike v. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
2008 WL 54920
No. CV 06-0866-PCT-EHC
United States District Court, D. Arizona, January 2, 2008
Subjects: Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation; United States. Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974; Navajo Indians -- Relocation; Hopi Indians -- Relocation; Residency requirements.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Before the Court are two Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. (Dkts.15, 24). Plaintiff seeks relief from a denial of relocation assistance benefits by the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (“ONHIR”), an administrative agency of the United States. The Commissioner of the ONHIR seeks affirmation of its final decision.
*Holding: not yet available
|
