|
|
April
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
2008 WL 895825
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
2008 WL 878824
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
Indian Educators Federation v. Kempthorne
2008 WL 857444
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
2008 WL 857439
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.
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. Village of Hobart, Wisconsin
2008 WL 821767
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: (from the opinion) The Community alleges that the State of Michigan (“State”) has illegally enforced the Michigan Sales Tax Act, M.C.L. §§ 205.51-205.78, and the Michigan Use Tax Act, M.C.L. §§ 205.91-205.111, against Community members and those who sell tangible personal property to Community members.
*Holding: not yet available
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
2008 WL 732162
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
2008 WL 680379
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: (from the opinion) On March 30, 2007, the Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Injunctive Relief against numerous federal Defendants FN1 and non-federal Defendants.FN2 In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Bureau of Reclamation (“BOR”) violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4332, et seq. (“NEPA”) and the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470, et seq. (“NHPA”) by failing to properly analyze the potential environmental and cultural resources impact resulting from the transfer of federal land to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (“District”). Plaintiff also alleges that BOR violated the Wellton-Mohawk Transfer Act of 2000 by transferring federal land for purposes of developing an oil refinery. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that BOR violated the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (“APA”), by engaging in actions that are not in accordance with law.
*Holding: not yet available
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
2008 WL 401414
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: (from the opinion) On September 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, and 28, 2007, the Court presided over a bench trial in this matter. In the Final Pretrial Order (Doc. # 239), G. Grant Lyon, the Chapter 11 trustee of the consolidated estates of Michael Keith Schugg and Debra Schugg, and the Gila River Indian Community set forth approximately forty-five (45) issues of fact and law to be tried and determined. Generally, the issues can be summarized as follows: (1) whether there is an easement or right-of-way via Smith-Enke Road or Murphy Road for access and utilities to Section 16 of Township 4 South Range 4 East in Pinal County (“Section 16”); (2) whether Murphy Road is an Indian Reservation Road that must remain open for public use; (3) whether Smith-Enke Road and/or Murphy Road are public rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 that must remain open for public use; (4) whether the easement and/or right-of-way access (if any) to Section 16 includes the right to improve the easements or install additional utilities thereon; (5) whether GRIC has the power to regulate zoning on Section 16; and (6) whether the Trustee, the Debtors, representatives of the S & T Dairy and/or their respective invitees, employees, assignees, agents or representatives have trespassed on tribal or allotted lands within the Gila River Indian Community's reservation.
*Holding: not yet available
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
2008 WL 495618
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
|
