Last updated: January 6, 2021
Legal Topics: Trademark Infringement
Legal Topics: Reservation Boundaries; Public Law 280
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction; Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereign Lending
Legal Topics: Treaty Rights
Legal Topics: IGRA
Legal Topics: ANCSA
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Selective Prosecution
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Treaty Rights; Tribal Membership
Legal Topics: Fee to Trust
Legal Topics: Sentencing Guidelines
Legal Topics: Title VII; Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Fee to Trust
Legal Topics: ICRA
Legal Topics: Sentencing Guidelines
Legal Topics: Title VII; Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Fee to Trust
Legal Topics: ICRA
Legal Topics: Sacred Sites
Legal Topics: Courts of Indian Offenses; Double Jeopardy
Legal Topics: Indian Gaming; Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: IGRA
Legal Topics: Indian Taxation; Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: ICRA; Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Tribal Election
Legal Topics: Early Voting; Voting Rights Act
Legal Topics: IGRA
Legal Topics: Voting Rights
Legal Topics: Keystone XL Pipeline
Legal Topics: ICRA
Legal Topics: NAGPRA
Legal Topics: Fraud
Legal Topics: Treaty Rights
Legal Topics: Water Rights
Legal Topics: Securities Act; Exchange Act
Legal Topics: Trust Relationship
Legal Topics: IGRA
Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: ICRA Habeas Corpus; Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine
Legal Topics: ICRA
Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Clean Water Act
Legal Topics: Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act
Legal Topics: Declaratory Relief; Tribal Health Organizations
Legal Topics: Federal Sentencing Disparities
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Water Rights
Legal Topics: IHS; Trust Relationship
Legal Topics: Federal Trust Breach; Reservation Boundaries
Legal Topics: CARES Act
Legal Topics: IGRA; Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: FTCA
Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: IGRA
Legal Topics: National Environmental Policy Act
Legal Topics: Tribal Courts; Water Rights
Legal Topics: Federal Jurisdiction; Indian Country Land Status
Legal Topics: Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act
Legal Topics: Tribal Elections
Legal Topics: Federal Tort Claims Act
Legal Topics: CARES Act
Legal Topics: Treaty Rights; Indian Taxation
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Diversity Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Federal Recognition
Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Tribal Court Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Medicare Like Rates; Fiduciary Duty
Legal Topics: Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act
Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Indian Education
*Synopsis: Oneida Nation brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging legal authority of village located within reservation's original boundaries to enforce its special events permit ordinance against tribe, its officers, and its employees. Village filed counterclaim for declaratory relief. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, No. 1:16-cv-01217, William C. Griesbach, J., 371 F.Supp.3d 500, entered summary judgment for village. Nation appealed.
*Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Hamilton, Circuit Judge, held that:
1) Village lacked authority to enforce permit ordinance;
2) Issue preclusion did not bar Nation from challenging village's legal authority to enforce ordinance against Nation; and
3) Exceptional circumstances did not warrant application of ordinance.
Reversed and remanded.
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Major Crimes Act
*Synopsis: Defendant was convicted following guilty plea in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Jeffrey Viken, J., of second degree murder, and sentenced to 48 months of incarceration. Government appealed.
*Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Kelly, Circuit Judge, held that defendant's below Guidelines sentence of 48 months was not substantively unreasonable.
Affirmed.
Legal Topics: IGRA; Gaming Compacts
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: CARES Act
Legal Topics: Payday Lending
Legal Topics: Federal Tort Claims Act
Legal Topics: TERO
Legal Topics: Water Rights
Legal Topics: Federal Tort Claims Act
Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereign Lending
*Synopsis: Indian tribes, environmental organizations, and animal-welfare groups filed suits claiming that Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) violated Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by issuing final rule “delisting” or removing grizzly bear population in Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem from threatened species list. Following consolidation and intervention by Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and private hunting and farming organizations, as defendant-intervenors, the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Dana L. Christensen, J., 343 F.Supp.3d 999, granted plaintiffs summary judgment, vacated final rule, and remanded. Government and intervenors appealed.
*Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Schroeder, Senior Circuit Judge, held that:
1) FWS's appeal of remand order was reviewable;
2) intervenors' appeal of recalibration order was reviewable;
3) full threats analysis was not required for effects of delisting on remnant population;
4) rule lacked adequate protection of grizzlies' long-term genetic diversity; and
5) rule's lack of commitment to recalibration of population estimator violated ESA.
Affirmed in part; remanded in part.
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Treaty Rights
Legal Topics: Indian Allotment
Legal Topics: Opioid Manufacturing
Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereignty; Banishment
*Synopsis: Indian tribes filed suits, under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), claiming that Army Corps of Engineers' grant of easement for construction and operation of Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) to carry crude oil under Lake Oahe, which was reservoir lying behind dam on Missouri River and was federally regulated waterway bordering tribes' reservations, violated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Mni Waconi Act. Following consolidation, the District Court, James E. Boasberg, J., 255 F.Supp.3d 101, granted in part and denied in part parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment, and remanded. On remand, Corps issued determination finding no significant environmental impact (FONSI) from pipeline crossing under waterway, thus exempting Corps from preparing environmental impact statement (EIS) under NEPA. The District Court, Boasberg, J., 2020 WL 1441923, granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment, remanded for Corps to complete EIS, and requested separate briefing, on status of easement and oil pending completion of EIS, in which tribes argued for vacatur of permits granting easement and government opposed vacatur.
*Holdings: The District Court, Boasberg, J., held that:
1) Seriousness of deficiencies of Corps' decision not to prepare EIS weighed in favor of vacatur of easement and emptying pipeline during remand, and
2) economic disruption did not weigh decisively in favor of remand without vacatur; and
3) environmental disruption did not weigh decisively in favor of remand without vacatur.
Vacated.
Legal Topics: Criminal Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Tribal Constitutions
Legal Topics: CARES Act
Legal Topics: Freedom of Information Act
Legal Topics: Endangered Species Act; National Forest Management Act
Legal Topics: Oil and Gas Leasing
Legal Topics: Tribal Elections
Legal Topics: CARES Act
Legal Topics: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act
Legal Topics: Fraud
*Synopsis: Two defendants were convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, P. Kevin Castel, Senior District Judge, of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy, money laundering, money laundering conspiracy, and making false statements in Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosures, arising out of defendants’ operation of an illegal payday lending scheme. Defendants appealed.
*Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Leval, Senior Circuit Judge, held that:
1) It would not have been futile for defendants to renew their objection to jury instruction on
willfulness element of racketeering, and
2) Even if jury jurisdiction on willfulness element of racketeering was plainly erroneous, the error did not affect defendants' substantial rights.
Affirmed.
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act
Legal Topics: ANCSA
Legal Topics: Federal Recognition
Legal Topics: Fraud; RICO
Legal Topics: Endangered Species Act; Cultural Resources
Legal Topics: Breach of Contract
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity; FTCA
Legal Topics: Indian Status
Legal Topics: Federal Coal Leases
Legal Topics: Uranium Mining; Cultural Resources
Legal Topics: Tribal Constitution
Legal Topics: Reserved Water Rights
Legal Topics: Writ of Habeas Corpus
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Indian Education
Legal Topics: Tribal Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Tribal Membership
Legal Topics:
CARES Act
Legal Topics: Jury Selection
Legal Topics: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Legal Topics: Recognition; Reservation Disestablishment
Legal Topics:
Indian Civil Rights Act; Americans With Disabilities Act
Legal Topics: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; Administrative Procedure Act
Legal Topics: Trust Land Acquisition
Legal Topics: Relief Funds; CARES Act
Legal Topics:
Federal Recognition
Legal Topics:
Clean Water Act
Legal Topics: Fee Agreements
Legal Topics: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
*Synopsis:
Inter-tribal council representing Arizona Indian tribes sued United States, alleging claims including breach of tribal trust obligations under Arizona-Florida Land Exchange Act (AFLEA) by failing to ensure sufficient security for full payments to be made by landowner for land exchange involving sale of land that was former site of off-reservation Indian boarding school, and by failing to collect and deposit or make up trust payments on which landowner defaulted. Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state claim. The Court of Federal Claims,
Nancy B. Firestone, Senior Judge, 140 Fed.Cl. 447, granted motion in part and denied motion in part. Inter-tribal council appealed.
*Holdings:
The Court of Appeals, Wallach, Circuit Judge, held that:
1)
AFLEA established a specific fiduciary duty owed by the government, as would support Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction;
2) Council sufficiently alleged government's breach of fiduciary duty to support Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction;
3) AFLEA can be fairly interpreted as mandating compensation for the government’s fiduciary wrongs, as would support Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction;
4) Failure-to-maintain-sufficient-security breach of fiduciary duty claims accrued, and six-year limitations period for bringing claims in Court of Federal Claims began to run, when government disclosed deficit of trust, that obligor and had defaulted, and that obligations were under collateralized;
5) Claim alleging failure to ensure adequate security when government negotiated trust fund payment agreement accrued, and six-year limitation period for bringing action in Court of Federal Claims began to run, when agreement was executed and council was made aware of agreement's terms; and
6) Government did not have duty under AFLEA to collect and pay all of the AFLEA’s required remaining annual payments and full final payment after default.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Legal Topics: Indian Civil Rights Act
Legal Topics: Trespassing; Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Treaty Rights
Legal Topics: Criminal Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Reservation Boundaries
Legal Topics: Tribal Elections; Trust Relationship
Legal Topics:
Tribal Court Jurisdiction
*Synopsis: Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Texas, brought action against federally recognized Indian tribe, seeking to enjoin the tribe from operating certain gaming activities. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Philip R. Martinez, J., 2019 WL 639971, granted summary judgment in favor of the State, 2019 WL 5026895, denied Indian tribe's motion for reconsideration, and, 2019 WL 5589051, granted Indian tribe's motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. Indian tribe appealed.
*Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Willett, Circuit Judge, held that:
1) Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act, rather than more permissive Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, governed Indian tribe's gaming activity;
2) Indian tribe was subject to Texas's gaming regulations, which functioned as surrogate federal law;
3) Balance of hardships favored permanent injunction prohibiting Indian tribe from operating gaming activities; and
4) Even if Texas nuisance law reached gaming activity, Indian tribe's gaming operation was not exempted, authorized, or otherwise lawful activity regulated by federal law under the nuisance law, and thus, the law provided basis for Attorney General to bring action on State's behalf.
Affirmed.
Legal Topics:
RICO Act
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics:
Indian Civil Rights Act
Legal Topics:
Federal Tort Claims Act
Legal Topics: Trust Relationship
Legal Topics: Mineral Leasing
Legal Topics:
Tribal Court Jurisdiction
Legal Topics: Indian Health Service; Treaty Rights
Legal Topics: Indian Health Service
Legal Topics: Prison Litigation Reform Act
Legal Topics: Treaty Rights; Cultural Resources
Legal Topics: Federal Recognition
Legal Topics: Land Into Trust
Legal Topics: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
Legal Topics: Federal Torts Claim Act
Legal Topics: Federal Trust Land
Legal Topics: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Legal Topics: Treaty Rights
Legal Topics: Fee to Trust
Legal Topics: Title VII; Discrimination
*Synopsis: Federally recognized Indian tribe brought action against railway company, asserting claims for breach of contract and trespass regarding right-of-way easement agreement for railroad constructed across tribal land, and seeking damages, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Robert S. Lasnik, Senior District Judge, 228 F.Supp.3d 1171, granted tribe's summary judgment motion, denied railway company's cross-motion for summary judgment, but found that tribe's state law claims for injunctive relief were preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), 2017 WL 2483071, granted tribe's motion for reconsideration on preemption issue, and 2018 WL 133656, clarified and denied railway company's motion for reconsideration. Railway company filed interlocutory appeal.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judge, held that:
1) The ICCTA does not repeal the Indian Right of Way Act;
2) Enforcement of easement agreement was not an unreasonable interference with rail transportation, and thus injunctive relief was not impliedly preempted by the ICCTA; and
3) ICCTA abrogates neither the general treaty-based federal common law right of tribes to exclude non-Indians from Indian lands, nor the explicit right to exclude contained in the Treaty of Point Elliott.
Affirmed and remanded.
Legal Topics: Negligent Conduct; Discrimination
Legal Topics: Fee to Trust; Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
Legal Topics: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Legal Topics: Prison Litigation Reform Act
Legal Topics: Fee to Trust; IGRA
Legal Topics: Public Law 280
Legal Topics: IGRA; Class III Gaming Compact
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Prisoner Civil Rights
Legal Topics: Housing and Urban Development; Property Law
Legal Topics: Voting Rights; Legal Standing
Legal Topics: Indian Health Service; Treaty Rights
Legal Topics: National Historic Preservation Act; Cultural Resources
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
*Synopsis: National committee for political party, party's senatorial campaign committee, and state political party brought action against state officials, challenging under federal Constitution and Voting Rights Act (VRA) state's out-of-precinct (OOP) policy requiring that in-person voters cast their ballots in their assigned precinct, and state's criminal statute making it a felony for a third party to collect early ballots from voters. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, No. 2:16-cv-01065-DLR, Douglas L. Rayes, J., entered judgment after bench trial for state officials. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals, Ikuta, Circuit Judge, 904 F.3d 686 affirmed and then, 911 F.3d 942, granted rehearing en banc.
*Holdings: The Court of Appeals, William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judge, held that:
1) Arizona's policy of wholly discarding, rather than counting or partially counting, ballots that were not cast in voters' assigned precinct, and social and historical conditions in Arizona, constituted impermissable vote denial in violation of Sec. 2 of VRA;
2) Arizona statute criminalizing the collection and delivery of another person's ballot, unless the third party was an official engaged in official duties, or was a family member, household member, or caregiver of the voter, constituted impermissable vote denial under "results test" of Sec. 2 of VRA;
3) Plaintiff established that racial discrimination was motivating factor leading to enactment of Arizona statute as required to allege enactment of statute constituted intentional discrimination in violation of Sec. 2 of VRA; and
4) Statute would not have been enacted without racial discrimination as a motivating factor, as required for enactment of statute to constitute intentional discrimination in violation of Sec. 2 of VRA and Fifteenth Amendment.
Reversed and remanded.
Legal Topics: Indian Reserved Water Rights
Legal Topics: Title VII; Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Jury Selection
Legal Topics: Cultural Resources; Trust Relationship
Legal Topics: Indian Civil Rights Act
Legal Topics: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: American Indian Religious Freedom Act
Legal Topics: Maine Water Quality Standards
Legal Topics: Tribal Property; Pueblo Lands Act
Legal Topics: Administrative Procedure Act
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Pro Se Property
*Synopsis: United States brought action to enjoin non-federally-recognized Indian tribe and its individual members selling hunting and fishing licenses that authorized members to take wildlife from Indian reservation. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Bruce S. Jenkins, Senior District Judge, 2018 WL 4222398, found that tribe lacked authority to issue licenses, but declined to issue permanent injunction. Parties filed cross-appeals.
*Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Tymkovich, Chief Judge, held that:
1) Mixed-blood Utes maintained their individual hunting and fishing rights on Uintah and Ouray Reservation after their membership in Ute Tribe was terminated;
2) Those rights were neither alienable, assignable, transferable, nor descendible;
3) Mixed-blood Utes could not convert their hunting and fishing rights into separate tribal rights;
4) Tribe lacked authority to issue hunting and fishing licenses; and
5) District court did not abuse its discretion in denying permanent injunction.
Affirmed.
Legal Topics: Federal Recognition
Legal Topics: Land Use
Legal Topics: Zoning Regulations; Tribal Property
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Administrative Procedures Act; Trust Obligations
Legal Topics: National Historic Preservation Act
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
Legal Topics: Sovereign Immunity
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
Visit the Archives for the Indian Law Bulletins to see cases from previous years.
Indian Law Bulletins are a current awareness service of the National Indian Law Library. The purpose of the Indian Law Bulletins is to provide succinct and timely information about new developments in Indian Law. See the About page for more information.
A note about links used in this document
Blue links on this page go to information available for free on the Internet. Green links go to information available on Westlaw which require a Westlaw account. The library is not affiliated with Thomson Reuters or Westlaw.
* Synopsis and holding provided under an agreement with Westlaw.
