2000-01 Term
Supreme Court Cases Related to Indian Law
Six Indian law-related cases were granted. One case was remanded.
One special order was given in an Indian law-related case.
Petition for certiorari was denied in 18 Indian law-related cases.
Petition for writ of mandamus was denied in 1 Indian law-related cases.
Cert Granted
Subject: Gaming, Taxation
*Issue: Does Section 20(d) of IGRA, 25
U.S.C. § 2719(d) , exempt Native American tribes from wagering
excise and occupational taxes imposed by Sections 4401 and 4411
of IRC?
Holding: Judgment vacated, and case remanded
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for
further consideration in light of Chickasaw
Nation v. United States. 534 U.S. 84, 122 S. Ct. 528, 151
L.Ed.2d 474 (2001)
History: Petition for certiorari filed
1/10/01. Remanded on 12/3/01.
Holding Below: Little
Six, Inc. and Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community v.United
States 210 F.3d 1361 Fed. Cir., 4/24/2000 Court held
that Indian pull-tab games are exempt from federal wagering taxes
under provision of the IGRA, 25
U.S.C. § 2719(d)(1).
Subject: Gaming - IGRA, Federal Taxation
*Issue: Under applicable Indian-law canons
of statutory construction, does IGRA, by 25
U.S.C §2719(d)(1)'s express incorporation of Chapter 35
of Internal Revenue Code, confer on Indian tribes conducting gaming
operations same exemption from wagering taxes afforded to states
by Chapter 35 of IRC?
Holding: The Supreme Court, Justice
Breyer, held that Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) did not exempt
Tribes from paying those gambling-related excise and occupational
taxes that States were not required to pay under Internal Revenue
Code chapter 35. Affirmed.
History: Petition for certiorari filed
10/03/00. Certiorari granted 1/22/01. Motion for petitioner to dispense
with printing the joint appendix granted 3/19/01. Decided 11/27/01.
Holdings Below: Chickasaw Nation v.
United States , 208
F.3d 871, 10th Cir., 4/5/00. (unpublished) Court of Appeals
held that pull-tab games are considered "lottery" and so are a taxable
"wager;" the Chickasaw Nation was considered a "person" and so subject
to taxes; the IGRA did not preclude the imposition of federal wagering
excise taxes; and finally, the self-government guarantee of the
1855 treaty between the U.S. and Chickasaw Nation did not preclude
the imposition of taxes in question. Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
v. United States, 10th Cir., 210
F.3d 389 (Unpublished) Using same reasoning as companion appeal
of Chickasaw Nation, the appeals court determined that the IGRA
does not preclude imposition of federal wagering excise taxes on
wagers placed on Indian pull-tab games operated by tribe under IGRA
on trust lands.
Subjects: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
Inter-Agency/Intra-Agency Exemption
*Issue: Are confidential communications
between Indian tribes and the Department of the Interior, in connection
with federal government's performance of its trust responsibility
to protect and manage tribal water rights, "intra-agency" documents
that may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 5 of Freedom
of Information Act, 5
U.S.C.§ 552(b)(5)
Holding: Supreme Court held that documents
passing between Indian Tribes and the Department of the Interior
that addressed tribal interests subject to state and federal proceedings
to determine water allocations, are not exempt from the disclosure
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, as "intra-agency
memorandums or letters" that would normally be privileged in civil
discovery. 5
U.S.C. §552(b)(5). Judgment of the Court of Appeals is
affirmed.
History: Petition for certiorari filed
5/22/00. Certiorari granted 9/26/00. Argued 1/10/01. Decided 3/5/01.
Holding Below: Klamath
Water Users Protective Association v. United States Department of
the Interior, 189 F.3d 1034 9th Cir, 8/31/99.
Subjects: Sovereign Immunity
*Issues: Is arbitration agreement contained
in contract executed by Indian tribe for commercial construction
outside of reservation or trust land boundaries enforceable by arbitration
proceedings provided for in agreement? When arbitration agreement
provides that "'[t]he award rendered by the arbitrator or arbitrators
shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance
with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof...,'"
does execution of such arbitration agreement constitute a waiver
of sovereign immunity from state court suit against Indian tribe
to enforce arbitration award resulting from such arbitration proceedings?
Holding: Supreme Court held that under
the agreement the Tribe proposed and signed, the Tribe clearly consented
to arbitration and to the enforcement of arbitral awards in Oklahoma
state court; the Tribe thereby waived its sovereign immunity from
C&L's suit. The judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
History: Petition for certiorari filed
8/22/00. Certiorari granted 10/30/00. Argued March 19, 2001. Motion
of San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians for leave to file
brief as amicus curiae granted 2/20/01.Motion of Texas, et al.,
for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for
divided argument is granted 2/20/01.Motion of the Acting Solicitor
General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae
and for divided argument is granted 2/20/01. Decided 4/30/01
Holding Below: C&L
Enterprises Inc., v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma,
Okla. Ct. App, 2/8/00, unpublished.
Subjects: Tribal sovereignty and powers,
Taxation
*Issue: May Indian tribe tax transaction
occurring between two non-Indians on fee land within reservation?
Holding: Supreme Court held that the Navajo
Nation's imposition of a tax upon nonmembers on non-Indian fee land
within the reservation is invalid. Judgment of the Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit is reversed.
History: Petition for certiorari filed
9/22/00. Certiorari granted 11/27/00. Argued 3/27/01. Motion of
the acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument
as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted 3/5/01. Decided
5/29/01.
Holding Below: Atkinson
Trading Co. v. Shirley, 210 F.3d 1247, 10th Cir.
Subject: Water rights -- Coeur D'Alene
Reservation, Idaho -- Coeur d'Alene Lake (Idaho); Submerged lands
-- Coeur d'Alene Lake (Idaho); Navigable waters -- Coeur d'Alene
Lake (Idaho); Indian title -- Coeur D'Alene Reservation, Idaho.
*Issue: Is the defeat of state title to
submerged lands implied when Congress, in pre-statehood act, authorizes
cession negotiations with Indian tribe for purpose of removing submerged
lands from executive order reservation they occupy?
Holding: Supreme Court held that
the National Government holds title, in trust for the Tribe, to
lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe
river. Judgment of the Court of Appeals, is affirmed.
History: Petition for certiorari filed
7/25/00. Certiorari granted 12/11/00. Argued April 23, 2001. Motion
of respondent Coeur D'Alene Tribe for divided argument granted 4/2/01.
Decided June 18, 2001.
Holding Below: United
States of America v. State of Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho,
210 F.3d 1067, 9th Cir.
Subject: Tribal Court - Jurisdiction
*Issues: Does either sovereign immunity
of Nevada, or qualified immunity of its officers, preclude tribal
court jurisdiction in actions stating tort and constitutional claims
against individually named state officials, for official actions
taken in Indian country with express permission of tribal judge?
Is the decision on the question of tribal court jurisdiction over
state officials properly bifurcated with consideration of tribal
court's jurisdiction separated from, and antecedent to, decision
on officials' claims of sovereign and qualified immunity? Is rule
of Montana
v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), creating presumption
against tribal court jurisdiction over nonmembers, limited to cases
in which cause of action against nonmember arises on lands within
reservation that are not controlled by tribe?
Holding: Supreme Court held that 1) Tribal
Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the wardens' alleged
tortious conduct in executing a search warrant for an off-reservation
crime; 2) Tribal Court had no jurisdiction over the §1983 claims;
3) Petitioners were not required to exhaust their claims in the
Tribal Court before bringing them in the Federal District Court;
4) Various arguments to the contrary lack merit. Judgment of the
Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case remanded for further
proceedings.
History: Petition for certiorari filed
6/5/00. Certiorari granted 10/10/00. Argued 3/21/01. Motions of
the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument
as amicus curiae and for divided argument are granted 2/20/01. Decided
6/25/01.
Holding Below: State
of Nevada, et al., v. Floyd Hicks, et al. 196 F.3d 1020
9th Cir.
Back to Top
Special Orders Given
Alaska
v. United States
Docket No. 128 Original
Subjects: Submerged
Lands and Wetlands
History: Motion
for leave to file complaint granted 6/12/00. Proposed supplemental
decree of 6/19/00 approved and entered 10/10/00. Special Master
appointed 10/16/00. Motion for Alaska to file amended complaint
granted 01/08/01. Amended complaint and answer are referred to
the Special Master 3/5/01. Motion of Franklin H. James, et al.,
for leave to intervene is referred to the Special Master 4/30/01.
Motion of the Special Master for fees and reimbursement of expenses
is granted, and the Special Master is awarded a total of $12,963.14
for the period October 16, 2000 - April 16, 2001, to be paid
equally by the parties 5/14/01.
Back to Top
Cert Denied
Tribal
Governing Board of Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians v. Thomas
Docket No. 99-1520
Subjects: Indian Reorganization Act -
Elections, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19
*Issue: Is the tribe, having an interest
in the continuity of its tribal constitution, a necessary party
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 19, in the action by private parties contesting
the way certain federal officials administered election to amend
tribal constitution?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
3/13/00. Certiorari denied 10/02/00.
Holding
Below: Thomas
v. United States, 189 F.3d 662, 7th Cir.,
9/7/99. Court held that the tribal governing board was
not a necessary party in the action since inter alia, Congress
had refused to reflect tribal interest in the legal structure
of tribal constitutional elections.
Great
Western Casinos Inc., v. Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Docket No. 99-1756
Subjects: Gaming - Fraud, Sovereign Immunity
*Issues: Does the doctrine of Sovereign
Immunity accorded to Indian tribes extend to non-tribe defendants,
including tribal council, tribal council members, tribal members,
and tribe's attorneys? Is action against non-tribe defendants preempted
by federal law despite Congress's mandate, codified at 28
U.S.C. § 1360, specifying that California's state courts
shall have jurisdiction over civil causes of action in which Indians
are party?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
5/1/00. Certiorari denied 10/02/00.
Holding
Below: Great Western Casinos, Inc.,
v. Morongo Band of Mission Indians, et al., 88 Cal.Rptr
.2d 828. Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's opinion
and held that it was not limited to reviewing the allegations
of the complaint to determine the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction; the tribe did not waive its sovereign immunity;
individual defendants were similarly immune from suit; and
federal law has completely preempted the field of Indian gaming,
thus the state court had no jurisdiction over the claims raised
in the complaint.
Ysleta
Del Sur Pueblo v. El Paso County Water Improvement District
No.1
Docket
No. 00-54
Subjects: Constitution - Eleventh Amendment
Immunity
*Issue: Does the Eleventh Amendment bar
suit against political subdivision of state simply because entity
possesses powers of government?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
7/10/00. Certiorari denied 10/02/00.
Holding
Below: Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. El Paso County Water
Improvement District No.1 , 5th Cir., unpublished.
Court held that county water improvement district is alter
ego of the state of Texas and is immune under the Eleventh
Amendment from suit in federal court. Tribe's arguments that
the state, by transacting in Tribe's lands, waived its Eleventh
Amendment immunity by engaging in activity regulated by Congress,
and that Congress abrogated state's Eleventh Amendment immunity
in Indian Non-Intercourse Act, 25
U.S.C. § 177, lack merit.
Anderson
v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
Docket No. 00-73
Subjects: Constitution, United States-
Due Process, Constitution, United States- Equal Protection
*Issue: Does state appellate Court's summary
dismissal of Native American's damages claim against non-Indian
corporate party because he failed to join sovereign Indian nation
undermine Congress's express grant of jurisdiction to New York courts
over private civil disputes between Indians and non-Indians, 25
U.S.C.§ 233, violate supremacy clause, or deprive Native
Americans of due process or equal protection of laws in violation
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
7/12/00. Certiorari denied 10/02/00.
*Holding
Below: Anderson v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., N.Y. App.Div.,
265 A.D.2d 817. Court dismissed complaint seeking damages for
public utility's breach of contract to provide expanded electric
service to business, privately owned by Tuscarora Indian and
located on Tuscarora Indian Nation's reservation for failure
to join Tuscarora Indian Nation as necessary party.
Ware
v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Housing Authority
Docket
No. 00-586
Subjects: State court jurisdiction, Tribal
sovereignty and powers
*Issue: Does Oklahoma statute, enacted
pursuant to 1937 United States Housing Act and intended to help
in creation of Indian housing authorities, also create jurisdiction
in Oklahoma courts to rule upon tribal political dispute and dictate
political processes tribe must use to select members of governing
body of tribe's Indian housing authority?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
10/13/00. Certiorari denied 1/16/01.
Holding
Below: Housing
Authority of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, et al. v. Ware,
et al. 10 P.3d 226, 7/18/00. Court held that district
court did not exceed its jurisdiction in entering judgment,
and that tribal council was a governing body with the power
to appoint commissioners to tribal housing authority.
Sac
and Fox Nation of Missouri v. Pierce
Docket No. 00-599
Subjects: Taxation, Tribal standing, State
immunity
*Issues: 1) Is The Kansas Indians,
72 U.S. 737 (1866), controlling case for interpretation and construction
of Kansas Enabling Act, 12 Stat. 126, thereby vitiating court of
appeals' reliance on United States v. Ward, 28 F.Cas.397
(1863)? 2) Can Tenth Circuit judicially modify act of Congress that
allowed State of Kansas to join Union on specific terms and conditions
that Indian Country would be excluded from jurisdiction and territory
of State of Kansas, thereby overturning lower federal court decisions?
3) Did court of appeals misconstrue interpretation of Kansas Enabling
Act as developed by Kansas state courts by failing to rely upon
Kansas Supreme Court's ruling in Parker v. Winsor, 5 Kan.
362 (Kan. 1870)? 4) When considered in light of its congressional
legislative history, does language of Kansas Enabling Act place
Indian Country beyond civil jurisdiction and control of State of
Kansas? 5) Did Tenth Circuit misconstrue, misinterpret, and misunderstand
Indian treaty law for Kansas tribes? 6) Did Tenth Circuit unilaterally
modify treaties of Iowa, Kickapoo, and Sac & Fox Tribes by its
ruling that Kansas has civil jurisdiction over Indian Country?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
10/11/00. Certiorari denied 2/20/01.
Holding
Below: Sac
and Fox Nation of Missouri et al., v. Pierce, 213
F.3d 566, 5/30/00.Court of Appeals held that: 1) neither the
Tax Injunction Act nor the Eleventh Amendment barred suit;
2) tribes had standing; 3)legal incidence of tax fell upon
the distributors and the tax imposed only an indirect burden
on the tribes; 4) tax law was not preempted; and 5) there was
insufficient evidence to allow balancing of federal, tribal,
and state interests.
Pierce
v. Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri
Docket No. 00-556
Subjects: State taxation, Tribal standing,
State immunity
* Issues: Does 28
U.S.C. § 1362, general jurisdictional statute for federal
suits brought by Indian tribes, abrogate states' 11th
Amendment immunity? Does Indian tribe have standing to challenge
state tax when legal incidence of tax does not fall on tribe or
its members, and tribe has no responsibility for administering or
collecting tax? Does Ex Parte Young doctrine apply when
Indian tribe challenges general state tax?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
10/11/00. Certiorari denied 2/20/01.
*Holding
Below: Pierce
v. Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri, 213 F.3d 566, 10th Cir.
Court held that state is not entitled to sovereign immunity
under 11th Amendment in Indian tribes' suit to enjoin
state from collecting its motor fuel tax on fuel distributed
to tribes' retail stations, notwithstanding state's contention
that 28
U.S.C. §1362, which specifically confers federal court
jurisdiction over matters involving Indian tribes, is not sufficient
to overcome immunity; tribes have constitutional standing to
maintain their suit to enjoin state from collecting motor fuel
tax on fuel distributed to tribes' retail stations; because
they have alleged particularized imminent economic injury if
state imposes tax on such fuel, alleged injury is directly
traceable to state's desire to tax such distributions, and
decision in favor of tribes would likely redress alleged injury,
given that distributors responsible for remitting tax pass
cost of tax along to tribes; with respect to prudential standing
considerations, tribes' alleged economic interests are arguably
within zone of interests protected by federal law through long-standing
principle of tribal self-government, and, even though legal
incidence of tax falls on non-Indians, tribe may still be entitled
to injunctive relief and therefore are not simply presenting "generalized
grievance" common to all retailers to whom distributors pass
cost of tax; court having found that it has jurisdiction to
consider merits of case under 28
U.S.C. § 1362, it declines to address question of
application of Ex parte Young 209 U.S. 123 (1908),
to matters of state taxation affecting Indian tribes.
South
Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of
Nevada v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
Docket
No. 00-838
Subject: Water rights, Waiver of immunity
*Issues: 1) When Nevada state water rights
are adjudicated to non-Indians and lands to which water rights are
appurtenant are subsequently purchased by United States and placed
in trust for south Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone
Indians as reservation, does acquisition and use of those waters
constitute waiver of tribe's immunity from suit to declare water
commissioner's right to cross reservation to administer water rights
of other parties? 2) Is United States indispensable party to litigation
involving question of whether or not right of way exists on lands
it holds in trust for South Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe? 3) When
lands and appurtenant water rights that are subject to state water
decree while in hands of private parties are purchased by United
States and placed in trust as reservation for tribe, does State
of Nevada have implied right of way across reservation land to administer
water rights of other parties?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
11/22/00. Certiorari denied 2/26/01.
Holding
Below: South
Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada
v. Sixth Judicial District Court ex rel. County of Humboldt,
7 P.3d 455 (Nev. 8/24/00). Supreme Court of Nevada denied writ of
prohibition to prevent district court from proceeding on petition
for order requiring petitioners to show cause why they should not
be held in contempt for interfering with the state engineer and water
commissioners in entering reservation to regulate adjudicated water
rights pursuant to the Humboldt Decree. Court held that tribe had
waived sovereign immunity and that as legal owner of the reservation,
the United States was not an indispensable party.
Karuk
Tribe of California v. United States
Docket No. 00-1012
Subjects: Eminent
domain, Compensation
History: Petition
for certiorari filed 12/18/00. Certiorari denied 3/26/01.
Holding
Below: Karuk Tribe of California v. Ammon 209
F.3d 1366, Fed. Cir April 18, 2000
Court
held that plaintiffs did not possess compensable vested property
interest in Reservation, and partition of the Reservation thus
was not unconstitutional taking.
Manybeads
v. United States
Docket No. 00-886
Subjects: Tribal immunity, Necessary and
indispensable party
*Issues: Does sovereign immunity of Indian
tribe that chooses to absent itself from lawsuit bar claim by individual
Indians against federal government that challenges constitutionality
of federal statute and that seeks only prospective injunction and
declaratory relief from federal government and nothing from absent
tribe? 2) Can United States adequately represent interest of Indian
tribe that voluntarily absents itself from lawsuit when Congress
has directed government to represent potentially conflicting interests
of absent tribe and other parties, when United States asserts that
it can represent both interests, when absent tribe can offer no
example of any actual conflict within context of litigation and
that otherwise denies other party any alternative forum to challenge
constitutionality of federal statute? 3) Does Indian tribe that
fully participates in litigation and mediation of lawsuit, including
preparation and proposal of settlement agreements that are accepted
by other parties and that unjustly enrich tribe, waive its sovereign
immunity, or in alternative should it be estopped from claiming
immunity?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
11/28/00. Motion of Hopi Tribe for leave to file a brief of amicus
curiae is granted 4/2/01. Certiorari denied 4/2/01.
Holding
Below: Manybeads,
et al. v. United States of America 209 F.3d 1164 9th Cir.
After Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, and representatives of individual
Navajos reached Accommodation Agreement limiting the rights
of Navajos residing on Hopi land, and after the Hopi Tribe
and United States reached Settlement Agreement entitling Hopi
Tribe to compensation, court held that the Tribe was both a
necessary and indispensable party.
Hardin
v. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Docket No.
00-1233
Subjects: State Taxation, 11th
Amendment
*Issues: 1) Is suit for tax refund in
state court adequate remedy at law so as to bar equitable relief
in federal court against state officials concerning state tax assessment?
2) Should this conflict in circuits be resolved by this court's
determining that state taxation is core area of state sovereignty
that renders Ex parte Young exception unavailable?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
1/24/01. Certiorari denied 4/2/01.
Holding
Below: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Hardin,
223 F.3d 104, 9th Cir. Court held that action was
properly characterized as a suit for declaratory relief against
state officers to enjoin an ongoing violation of federal law,
rather than a suit against the state itself, and thus came
exception under Ex Parte Young to EleventhAmendment's
grant of sovereign immunity, even though tribe had an available
remedyunder state law.
Michigan
v. EPA
Docket No. 00-746
Subjects: Environmental
regulation, Tribal sovereignty and powers - Trust lands, Reservation
land owned in fee by non-Indians
History: Petition
for certiorari filed 11/9/00. Certiorari denied 4/16/01.
Holding
Below: Arizona
Public Service Co. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 211 F.3d 1280,
5/5/00. Court held that 1) Congress expressly delegated authority
to tribes to regulate air quality on privately-owned fee land
within reservation; 2) EPA's interpretation of "reservations" to
include tribal trust land was reasonable; 3) So long as tribe
has inherent jurisdiction over allotted lands and dependent
Indian communities, tribe has authority to redesignate geographic
areas and propose tribal implementation plans; 4) challenge
to EPA's purported limitation on responsive comments was moot;
5) claim that EPA impermissibly abrogated existing agreements
between tribes and regulated industry was not ripe for review;
6) EPA could exempt tribes from certain judicial review requirements;
and 7) parties had adequate notice of final rule's content
regarding judicial review procedures.
Connecticut
ex rel. Blumenthal v. U.S. Department of the Interior
Docket No. 00-1032
Subjects: Connecticut Indian Land Claims
Settlement Act, Trust Lands, Indian Reorganization Act
*Issues: Did Second Circuit misconstrue
CISCSA, 25
U.S.C. §§ 1751-1760, by construing statutory limits
of secretary of interior's trust acquisition authority so broadly
that, as conceded by court, it 'would theoretically make it possible
for Secretary to take into trust virtually all of southeastern Connecticut,'
thereby diminishing sovereign territory of state without its consent?
2) Is Second Circuit's application of Indian canon of statutory
construction to contemporary act of Congress that is not result
of unequal bargaining power of Indians inconsistent with original
intent of canon as articulated through this court's precedents?
3) Did Second Circuit err in deferring to agency interpretation
of CILCSA when interpretation permitting trust acquisition in question
is inconsistent with and complete reversal of agency's prior interpretation
made two years earlier disallowing same trust acquisition?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
12/22/00. Certiorari denied 4/30/01.
Holding
Below: Connecticut v. U.S. Department of the Interior 228
F.3d 82, 2d Cir.September 25, 2000. Court held that Connecticut
Indian Land Claims Settlement Act proscribed Secretary from
taking into trust only those non-settlement lands acquired
by Tribe that were purchased settlement funds.
Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes v. United States
Docket No. 00-1262
Subjects: Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, Consent Decree
*Issues: 1) Should EPA be required to
exercise its federal fiduciary obligations to Indian tribes under
RCRA to fully protect and preserve reservation lands from hazardous
waste pollution and contamination? 2) Should EPA's decisions be
subject to heightened scrutiny of judicial review when federal actions
directly impact trust property and tribal resources?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
2/2/01. Certiorari denied 5/14/01.
*Holding
Below: Shoshone Bannock Tribes v. United States,
229 F.3d 1161, 9th Cir, unpublished, 7/7/00. Absent
specific duty imposed on government with respect to Indians,
government's general trust duty to tribes is satisfied by complying
with general regulations and statutes that are not specifically
aimed at protecting tribes, accordingly, because RCRA is not
aimed specifically at protecting Indian tribes, EPA satisfied
general trust duty to tribes, in connection with consent decree
resolving RCRA claims with company that produces elemental
phosphorous at plant located on fee land within Shoshone-Bannock
Fort Hall Reservation, by engaging in fair and extensive consultation
with tribes during negotiations, even though tribes were not
party to suit, and by effecting reasonable settlement reached
at arm's length.
Cermak
v. Norton
Docket No. 00-1433
Subjects: Allotments, Jurisdiction
*Issues: 1) Should "Indian Land Certificates"
issued by Bureau of Indian Affairs for land in Minnesota be characterized
as "allotments" for purposes of federal law and for purposes of
obtaining federal jurisdiction? 2) Have DOI and BIA effected unconstitutional
taking of property rights to which heirs had legal expectancy? 3)
Does Pub. L. No. 96-557 permit DOI to unilaterally cut off rights
to land assignments held by Native American or to dispossess his
heirs of their rights?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
3/13/01. Certiorari denied 5/14/01.
Holding
Below: Cermak
v. Babbitt, Fed. Cir., 234 F.3d 1356, 12/13/00. Court
held that Jurisdictional statute for Court of Federal Claims
and statute providing that district courts had subject matter
jurisdiction over certain claims against United States, constituted
waivers of sovereign immunity with respect to claim for damages
but not with respect to claim for injunctive relief; 2) statute
conferring on district courts jurisdiction over actions involving
Indians' rights to allotments did not provide District Court
with jurisdiction; and 3) Court of Federal Claims' lack of
jurisdiction to order equitable relief for descendants did
not preclude transfer of action to Court of Federal Claims,
absent basis for District Court jurisdiction over equitable
claim.
Ysleta
del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
Docket No. 00-1413
Subjects: Gaming, Tribal Sovereign Immunity
*Issues: 1) Did Congress unequivocally
express intent to abrogate petitioners' tribal sovereign immunity
from suit by providing in Section 1300g-6(c) that "nothing in this
section shall be construed as precluding the State of Texas from
bringing an action in the courts of the United states to enjoin
violations of the provisions of this section"? 2) Did Congress condition
bringing suit under such abrogation, if any, upon authorization
by state legislature? 3) Does abrogation of immunity in Section
1300g-6(c), if any, extend to state law causes of action?ss
History: Petition for certiorari filed
3/12/01. Certiorari denied 6/4/01.
*Holding
Below: State v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 5th Cir.(Tex.),
unpublished, 10/31/00. Court held that Provision of the Restoration
Act 25
U.S.C. § 1300g-6(c), that states that "nothing in
this section shall be construed as precluding the State of
Texas from bringing an action in the courts of the United States
to enjoin violations of the provisions of this section" clearly
abrogates tribal immunity with respect to action in federal
court by Texas to enjoin violations of anti-gaming provision
of act, 25
U.S.C. § 1300g-6(a), which states that all gaming
activities prohibited under Texas law are prohibited on tribe's
reservation.
San
Juan School District Board of Education v. Sinajini
Docket No. 00-1596
Subjects: Education
- Schools, Equal Opportunity, Consent Decree
History: Petition
for certiorari filed 4/17/01. Certiorari denied 6/178/01.
Holding
Below: Sinajini,
et al v. Board of Education of the San Juan School District, 233
F.3d 1236, 10th Cir. Parents and Chapters of Navajo
Tribe sued school district, alleging it denied equal educational
activities to Native Americans on the basis of race. District
Court held that parents and Chapters had partially prevailed
and awarded them reduced amount of attorney fees. Parents and
Chapters appealed. Court of Appeals found that 1) District
Court had erred in limiting attorney fees award to issues pled;
2) catalyst test did not apply to question whether parents
and Chapters prevailed for purposes of attorney fees; and 3)
District Court erred in determining that parents achieved only
limited success because they prevailed on a significant claim
but such claim was only one of approximately twenty-one claims
for relief.
Pezold,
Richey, Caruso & Barker v. Cherokee Nation
Docket
No. 00-1552
Subject: Sovereign Immunity
*Issues: Does Indian Tribe's assertion
of sovereign immunity insulate tribe from court-imposed sanctions
for tribe's misconduct during litigation?
History: Petition for certiorari filed
4/9/01. Certiorari denied 6/29/01.
Holding
Below: Pezold,
Richey, Caruso & Barker v. Cherokee Nation Industries Inc.,
and The Cherokee Nation, 18 P.3d 364, Okla. Ct. App.,
9/1/00. Law firm brought suit against Tribe to recover attorney
fees arising from representation of tribe in commercial matters.
District Court imposed discovery sanctions against tribe after
firm dismissed case without prejudice due to lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Tribe appealed. Court of Civil Appeals
held that the tribe's sovereign immunity protected it from
state court's exercise of inherent powers to sanction abusive
litigation practices.
Back to Top
Mandamus Denied
In
re Leon Braun, petitioner
Docket No. 00-1223
Subjects: False
Claims Act, Sovereign Immunity
History: Petition
for writ of mandamus filed 1/16/01. Mandamus denied 3/26/01.
Rehearing denied 5/14/01.
Holding
Below: Braun, Leon, v. Seminole Tribe of Florida,
11th Cir. unpublished, 8/21/01.
Back to Top
