Source: http://narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/2004dct.html
Timestamp: 2015-03-01 08:24:54
Document Index: 314790313

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1981', '§ 1331', '§ 305', 'art 8100', 'art 2', '§ 2', '§ 305', '§ 2703', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1302', '§ 42', '§ 1331', '§ 2701', '§ 1447', '§ 2701', '§ 2710', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

2004 Federal Trial Courts - Indian Law Bulletins; National Indian Law Library, Native American Rights Fund
| Federal Trial Courts
2004 Federal Trial Courts Cases
Stately v. Indian Community School of Milwaukee, Inc.
F.Supp.2d 858, No. 02-C-0817
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin, December 30, 2004
Subjects: Teachers; Indian
School of Milwaukee; Discrimination in employment; Termination of employees
-- Indian School of Milwaukee; United States.
7; Jurisdiction -- United States; United States. Constitution. 1st Amendment;
Freedom of religion -- United States; Wisconsin. Fair Employment Act.
*Synopsis: Terminated
teacher sued private elementary and middle school, which was based on traditional
Indian spiritual and cultural principles, alleging discrimination based on
race and religion in violation of Title VII, § 1981,
and Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, and asserting state-law claims for breach
of contract and wrongful termination. School moved to dismiss for lack of
*Holding: The
District Court, Randa, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) school fairly cast into doubt District Court's jurisdiction over teacher's
Title VII claim, with respect to whether school was "religious";
(2) teacher acted in ministerial role for purposes of Title VII's ministerial
(3) allowing teacher to proceed would result in excessive entanglement in violation
of Establishment Clause.
Bonnichsen v. United States of America 2004 WL 2901204, No. Civ. 96-1481-JE
United States District Court, D. Oregon, Decmber 15, 2004
Subjects: Scientists;
Lawyers -- Fees; Kennewick Man; United States. Equal Access to Justice Act;
United States. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; Confederated Tribes
of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands
of the Yakama Nation, Washington (formerly the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation of
the Yakama Reservation).
the opinion) The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nez
Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (the Tribes) move to
intervene in this action. I deny the motion. *Holding: not
Dubray v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
T.C. Memo.2004-278, No. 7547-02
United States Tax Court, December 13, 2004. Subjects: Income
tax -- Law and legislation -- United States
-- Application -- Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation,
-- Members; Indian business enterprises --
-- Members; Fort Laramie, Treaty of, 1851.
*Synopsis: Taxpayer, an enrolled member of Cheyenne River Tribe of Sioux Indians, petitioned for redetermination of deficiencies. *Holding: The Tax Court, Goeke, J., held that Fort Laramie Treaty did not exempt from taxation income that taxpayer received from his employment with corporation owned and operated by Tribe.
In re: Duane Garvis 402 F.Supp.2d 1219 No. CV-03-0291-JLQ United States District Court, E. D. Washington, December 2, 2004.
jurisdiction -- Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation, Washington; Jurisdiction
-- Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation, Washington; Police -- United
States; United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs -- Officials and employees;
Indians of North America -- Defined.
*Synopsis: Federal police officer petitioned for writ of habeas corpus, challenging Indian tribal court's jurisdiction to try him on criminal charges.
*Holding: The District Court, Quackenbush, J., held that officer was not "Indian" over whom tribal court had jurisdiction.
Nation v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
WL 2755545, No. 04-cv-166
United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania, Nov. 30, 2004
Indians; Extinguishment of Indian title -- Delaware Indians; Pennsylvania;
Bucks County (Pa.); Delaware Nation, Oklahoma (formerly the Delaware Tribe
of Western Oklahoma); Land tenure -- Delaware Indians.
the opinion) In this action, Plaintiff, The Delaware Nation, a federally
recognized Native American tribe seeks to recover possession of 315 acres
of land purchased from the Proprietors of Pennsylvania in 1741. For the
following reasons, the Defendants Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED.
*Holding: not
Stories: Delaware
Nation suit over Forks Twp. land dismissed (The
Morning Call) 12/2/04
Gillette v. Marcellais
WL 2677268, No. A4-04-123
United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Nov. 22, 2004
Subjects: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Habeas corpus; Exhaustion of tribal remedies; Criminal actions arising in Indian Country (U.S.) -- Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota.
the opinion) The plaintiff, Vance Gillette, filed a petition for habeas
corpus relief which arises out of a criminal complaint on the Turtle Mountain
Reservation in Belcourt, North Dakota...Gillette later supplemented his
petition with a Request for Stay and Order to Show Cause and requested
that the Court of Appeals bar his prosecution. On July 16, 2004, Gillette's
petition was denied for failure to exhaust all available remedies because
he had not yet been tried in trial court... It is clear and undisputed
that Gillette has not exhausted his tribal remedies. As noted by the Turtle
Mountain Court of Appeals, if Gillette is convicted in tribal court he
will have an opportunity to appeal the conviction to the Court of Appeals.
Once tribal remedies have been exhausted, Gillette may seek redress from
this Court. However, this Court must adhere to the well-established doctrine
of tribal exhaustion until Gillette has exhausted the remedies available
to him within the tribal court system.
225 F.R.D. 4, No. CIV.A.96-1285(RCL)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, November 17, 2004
Subjects: IIM
(Individual Indian monies) accounts -- Accurate accounting and account reform;
IIM (Individual Indian monies) accounts -- Records; Breach of trust -- United
States; Trusts and trustees -- Accounting; United States. Dept. of the Interior
-- Records and correspondence; Indian land transfers.
*Synopsis: In
action brought by beneficiaries of individual Indian money (IIM) trust accounts
against Secretary of Interior (DOI), Secretary of Treasury and other trustees,
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from alleged mismanagement of accounts,
DOI requested further clarification of prior order requiring it to cease
all communications with class members related to the sale, exchange, transfer,
or conversion of Indian trust land pending Court approval of an accompanying
District Court, Lamberth, J., held that DOI could properly send class members
communications related to the sale, exchange, transfer, or conversion of
Indian trust land, so long as such communications were accompanied by a Court-approved
notice. Ordered accordingly.
Sirmans v. Brownlee
F.Supp.2d 56, No. CIV.A.00-1135 RCL
United States District Court, District of Columbia, Nov. 15, 2004
-- United States; Discrimination; Equality before the law; Indians of North
America -- Promotions.
*Synopsis: Native
American male officer brought action alleging that Army's officer promotion
practices were discriminatory. Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. *Holding: The
District Court, Lamberth, J., held that:
(1) settlement agreement did not preclude challenges relating to prior selection
board's decision;
(2) officer had standing to challenge Army's equal opportunity instructions
on ground that they discriminated against males; and
(3) instructions violated officer's Fifth Amendment right to equal protection. Motions granted in part, and denied in part.
WL 2473250, No. 03-C-559-C.
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin, Nov. 1, 2004
States. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; Indian
prisoners -- Wisconsin; Freedom of religion; Herbs -- Therapeutic use; Indians
the opinion) Plaintiff Johnson W. Greybuffalo contends that defendant
Daniel Bertrand denied his proposal for a religious group for Native American
inmates in violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment
and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Jurisdiction
is present under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Rio Arriba County
2004 WL 3413347 Docket No. CIV. 02-1470JBRLP
United States District Court, D. New Mexico, October 30, 2004
Subjects: Tax assessment -- New Mexico -- Rio Arriba
County; Real property tax -- Jicarilla Apache Nation,
New Mexico (formerly the Jicarilla Apache Tribe of the Jicarilla Apache Indian
Reservation); Equality before the law -- Jicarilla Apache Nation,
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought civil rights action against county and county officials, alleging county's reassessment of ranch for property tax purposes violate equal protection. After summary judgment was entered in favor of the officials in their individual capacities on ground of qualified immunity, county and officials in their official capacities moved for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Browning, J., held that:
(1) additional discovery on issues of county officials' improper subjective intent and the existence of a municipal policy, practice, or custom to discriminate against Indian tribe was not required, and
(2) county's reassessment of ranch's status for property tax purposes did not violate Indian tribe's equal protection rights under a "class of one" theory. Motion granted.
Native American Arts, Inc. v. Aquino
WL 2434260, No. 04 C 2540.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Oct. 29, 2004
American Arts (Ill.); Emma's Sterling Silver Jewelry; United States. Indian
Arts & Crafts Act; Indian craft; Deceptive advertising.
*Synopsis: Plaintiff
Native American Arts, Inc. has brought this action against defendants Emma
Aquino and Mohammad Rahman, d/b/a Emma's Sterling Silver Jewelry, alleging
that they falsely represented that goods they sold were Indian-made in violation
of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, 25
U.S.C. § 305e.
Zephier v. United States
No. 03-768L.
United States Court of Federal Claims, Oct. 29, 2004
States. Tucker Act; Abused Indian children; Off-reservation boarding schools;
United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs; Class actions (Civil procedure).
the opinion) Plaintiffs, seven members of the Sioux Nation sue the
United States under the Tucker Act, 28
U.S.C. 1491, for $25 billion in damages allegedly caused by sexual,
physical, and mental abuse suffered during 1921 - 1924 and perhaps under
other unspecified dates at Indian boarding schools managed by various church
organizations, and overseen by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Plaintiffs
also seek to certify and represent a class of similarly situated plaintiffs.
Related News Stories:Lawyer: Indian school students have
recourse (AP)
11/16/04. Judge dismisses $25B BIA boarding school suit. (Indianz.com)
11/8/04. Tunica-Biloxi Tribe v. Bridges no free link currently available
2004 WL 137183, No. 03-881
United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana, October 29, 2004
homes -- Taxation -- Louisiana; Constitutional law; Tunica-Biloxi Indian
Tribe of Louisiana -- Members; Taxation -- Louisiana; Tax collection -- Tunica-Biloxi
Indian Tribe of Louisiana.
the opinion) The plaintiffs originally filed suit against Cynthia Bridges
in this court, "seeking to enjoin the unconstitutional levy and collection
of state sales tax on enrolled individual tribe members," and "for
equitable restitution of al monies illegally collected by their tribe,
and "all similarly situated individuals," constitute a class
that was illegally taxed by the State on the purchase of mobile homes.
62 Fed.Cl. 521, No. 03-2684L
United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana, October 27, 2004. Subjects: Fiduciary
States; Trusts and trustees; Accounting;
Breach of trust -- United
States; Mdewakanton Indians;
United States. Court of Federal
*Synopsis: Lineal descendants of Mdewakanton Sioux who were loyal to the United States during the Sioux Outbreak in Minnesota during 1862 brought suit against the United States for breach of fiduciary duty and contract in the management of property originally provided for the benefit of loyal Mdewakanton. Government filed motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
(1) United States created a trust for Mdewakanton Sioux who were loyal to the United States during the Sioux Outbreak in Minnesota, as reflected in Appropriations Acts of 1888, 1889, 1890 and 1901;
(2) trust was not terminated by 1980 Act which transferred whatever title the United States had in certain trust land to the United States in trust for three Mdewakanton Sioux communities in Minnesota;
(3) Indian Trust Accounting Statute applied to breach of fiduciary duty claims; and
(4) breach of contract claim accrued in 1981, and thus was untimely.
Defendant's motion granted in part and denied in part; plaintiffs' cross-motion granted in part and denied in part.
American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota v. Kiffmeyer
WL 2428690, No. 04-CV-4653 MJR/FLN.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Oct. 28, 2004
cards; Indians of North America -- Minnesota; American Civil Liberties Union;
Voting; Elections.
the opinion) For purposes of Minn.Stat. Sec. 201.061, subd. 3, tribal
identification cards that contain the name, address, signature and picture
of the tribal member will have the same status as a Minnesota driver license.
Therefore, such tribal identification cards are sufficient proof of identity
and residency, and may be used without any other documentation to register
to vote on election day in the precinct in which the address on the tribal
identification card is located, without regard to whether the tribal members
live on or off their tribal reservations. (2) For purposes of Minn. Rule Part 8100.5100, photographic tribal identification
cards that do not contain any address or a current address can be used to meet
the standards of subpart 2(A). Therefore, a tribal member can use such tribal
identification card together with a current utility bill to register to vote
on election day in the precinct in which the address on the utility bill is
Fed.Cl. 521, No. 03-2684L
United States Court of Federal Claims, Oct. 27, 2004
accountability -- United States; Trusts and trustees  Accounting; Breach
of trust -- United States; Mdewakanton Indians; Jurisdiction -- United States;
*Synopsis: Lineal
descendants of Mdewakanton Sioux who were loyal to the United States during
the Sioux Outbreak in Minnesota during 1862 brought suit against the United
States for breach of fiduciary duty and contract in the management of property
originally provided for the benefit of loyal Mdewakanton. Government filed
motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed cross-motion for partial summary
Court of Federal Claims, Lettow, J., held that: (1) United States created
a trust for Mdewakanton Sioux who were loyal to the United States during
the Sioux Outbreak in Minnesota, as reflected in Appropriations Acts of 1888,
1889, 1890 and 1901; (2) trust was not terminated by 1980 Act which transferred
whatever title the United States had in certain trust land to the United
States in trust for three Mdewakanton Sioux communities in Minnesota;(3)
Indian Trust Accounting Statute applied to breach of fiduciary duty claims;
and (4) breach of contract claim accrued in 1981, and thus was untimely.
Defendant's motion granted in part and denied in part; plaintiffs' cross-motion
granted in part and denied in part. Tsosie v. United States
441 F.Supp.2d 1100 No. CIV.02-1411 MCA/RHS
United States District Court, D. New Mexico, October 22, 2004
*Synopsis: Family of deceased member of Navajo Nation brought action against United States, alleging negligent failure of Indian Health Service (IHS) to diagnose hantavirus. Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state claim or, in alternative, for summary judgment. After motion was granted in part and denied in part, additional briefing was directed.
*Holding: The District Court, Armijo, J., held that:
(1) special trust relationship between United States and Native Americans, in and of itself, did not give rise to fiduciary duty providing breach-of-trust action for money damages based on failure of Indian Health Service (IHS) to diagnose hantavirus, and
(2) statute did not extend protections of Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to non-IHS physician who worked in emergency room but did not have admitting privileges at IHS facility.
F.R.D. 266, No. CIV.A. 96-1285(RCL)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, Oct. 22, 2004
-- Records and correspondence.
*Synopsis: Interior
and Treasury Departments, whose statements of account to beneficiaries of
Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust accounts had been found to be deficient, 212
F.R.D. 14, sought approval of amended statements and related communications.
Account beneficiaries who were members of class asserting Departments' breach
of fiduciary duty objected. *Holding: The
(1) statements and communications could be sent if accompanied by requisite
notice, and (2) allegations made in beneficiaries' pleadings would not be stricken as scandalous. Statements conditionally approved. Related News
Stories: Cobell v. Norton synopsis (www.indiantrust.com)
Gros Ventre Tribe v. U.S., Bureau of Land Management
F.Supp.2d 1221, No. CV 00-69-M-DWM.
United States District Court, D. Montana, Oct. 22, 2004
Subjects: Coal mines and mining -- Montana; Groundwater -- Pollution; Arsenic -- Environmental
aspects; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of
Montana; United States. Bureau of Land Management.
*Synopsis: Indian
tribes brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that
the Government violated its trust responsibility to the tribes by approving
mining operations on non-tribal lands that caused pollution of tribal lands.
Following a grant of summary judgment for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
tribes moved to alter or amend.
*Holding: The District Court, Molloy, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) Administrative Procedure Act did not waive Government's sovereign immunity;
(2) action was time-barred; and
(3) action alleging that the Government breached its common law trust obligation
to the tribes by approving the mining operations, resulting in pollution of
tribal lands, was time-barred.
F.Supp.2d 539, No. CIV.A.00-1135 RCL
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division, Oct. 26, 2004
and seizures -- On Indian reservations -- Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of
Michigan, Isabella Reservation; Jurisdiction -- Michigan; Due process of
*Synopsis: Defendant
was charged with various controlled substance and firearms offenses. Defendant
brought motion to suppress evidence and to suppress statements. *Holding: The
District Court, Lawson, J., held that:
(1) Court had subject matter jurisdiction over defendant;
(2) undercover police officer did not violate Fourth Amendment by entering
home with owner of trailer park without warrant, on purported basis of testing
water within home even though his true purpose was concealed;
(3) defendant's live-in girlfriend had authority under Fourth Amendment to
consent to entry of home;
(4) state judicial officer did not have authority to issue warrant to state
concept unit to search premises within Indian country, and, consequently, evidence
seized pursuant thereto had to be suppressed; and
(5) defendant's statements to police while he was suffering from drug withdrawal
were not in violation of his rights under due process clause, and did not have
to be suppressed. Motion granted in part and denied in part. Corliss v. Levesque Auto Services, Inc.
WL 2337019, No. Civ.A. 04-10834-DPW
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts, Oct. 13, 2004
-- United States; Damages; Automobiles -- Maintenance and repair; Towing
-- On Indian reservations -- Watuppa Reservtion (Mass.).
the opinion) The following facts are drawn from the plaintiff's complaint.
The plaintiff is a member and council chairman of an Indian tribe--the
Nemasket Troy Wampanoag tribe--formed in the year 2000, which holds meetings
and other activities on the Watuppa Indian Reservation (the "Reservation").
On April 20, 2001, he arranged for his car, which had broken down while
he was traveling nearby, to be towed to the grounds of the Reservation.
On or about May 5, 2001, the plaintiff's car was towed from the Reservation,
allegedly because it had been abandoned there, by a tow-truck owned and
operated by Levesque. Levesque was authorized to perform towing services
on the Reservation by the FRPD.
Nearly three years later, on April 27, 2004, the plaintiff commenced the present
action against Levesque, the FRPD, and "Does 1-10" for the tort of
conversion. In his complaint, the plaintiff maintains that this court "has
jurisdiction over all local Indian matters" and that the FRPD had no jurisdiction
over the Reservation lands. On June 22, 2004, the FRPD moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(1) that the complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
due to the absence of federal question, diversity of citizenship, or any other
grounds for federal court jurisdiction.
Wyandotte Nation v. Sebelius
F.Supp.2d 1253, No. 04-2140-JAR
United States District Court, D. Kansas, Oct. 6, 2004
(Law); Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma; Land use -- Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma;
Indian gaming -- Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma; Gambling on Indian reservations
-- Oklahoma; Casinos -- Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma; Law -- Oklahoma.
tribe, involved in dispute with federal government over status of land on
which it was operating casino, moved for preliminary injunction to prevent
state from enforcing its gambling laws on land in question.
District Court, Robinson, J., held that tribe was likely to prevail on merits
of claim that land on which casino was operating was Indian land.
State of Wisconsin v. The Stockbridge-Munsee Community 366 F.Supp.2d 698 Docket No. 98-C-0871
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin, September 30, 2004
Subjects: Stockbridge-Munsee
Community of Mohican Indians of Wisconsin; Wisconsin; Gambling on Indian
reservations -- Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Mohican Indians of Wisconsin;
Pine Hills Golf Course and Supper Club (Wis.); Indian gaming -- Class III
-- Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Mohican Indians of Wisconsin; United States.
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; Intergovernmental agreements -- Stockbridge-Munsee
Community of Mohican Indians of Wisconsin; Intergovernmental agreements --
*Synopsis:State of Wisconsin filed action alleging that Indian tribe was operating Class III electronic games of chance on land located outside the boundaries of the tribe's reservation in violation of Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Defendants filed motion for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Gorence, United States Magistrate Judge, held that:
(1) Congress intended to diminish the size of Indian reservation to 18 contiguous sections when it passed Act of 1871, and
(2) Act of 1906 disestablished Indian reservation.
Defendants' Motion denied. Summary judgment granted in favor of plaintiff.
Ellenbecker v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
F.Supp.2d 999, No. CIV. 02-3042.
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division, Sep.30, 2004
Dakota. Dept. of Social Services; United States. Dept. of Health and Human
Services. Departmental Appeals Board; Medicaid; Medical care -- Cost.
*Synopsis: South
Dakota Department of Social Services (DSS) appealed from final decision by
the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) of the United States Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) disallowing claims for reimbursement at 100% enhanced
reimbursement rate for Medicaid costs incurred and paid by State for eligible
Indians who received services non-Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities.
DSS and DHHS cross moved for summary judgment.
District Court, Kornmann, J., held that services at non-IHS were "received
through" IHS, within meaning of statute requiring 100% reimbursement
for such services, since referral to non-IHS facility had been made pursuant
to contractual agreement by IHS. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
granted. Wopsock v. Nordwall
2004 WL 4951450 No. 2:03CV826 TC
United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division, September 29, 2004
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Plaintiffs, who are individual members of the Ute Indian Tribe, have filed suit against various federal government officials and agencies (for example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs) for alleged breach of trust duties concerning assets of the Ute Indian Tribe. The Ute Indian Tribe is an intervening defendant.
F.R.D. 41, No. CIV. A. 96-1285 RCL
United States District Court, District of Columbia, Sep 29, 2004
*Synopsis: Beneficiaries
of Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust accounts brought action alleging breach
of fiduciary duties through mismanagement of accounts by Secretaries of Interior
and Treasury. Plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction. *Holding: The
(1) court had jurisdiction to address whether communications from Interior
regarding sale of Indian land violated prior court order;
(2) class members had standing to challenge communications; and
(3) Interior had to provide notice of pendency of litigation to class members
before undertaking any such sales.
The Samish Indian Nation v. United States Department of Interior
2004 WL 3753252 No. C02-1955P
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, September 22, 2004
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Upon their recognition in 1996, the Tribe received "New Tribes" funding, money intended (among other things) to assist them in developing their own tribal government. BIA acknowledges that the funding amount is arrived at pursuant to a formula based on factors such as the number of members enrolled in the tribe, whether they have a land base and how remote they are geographically. Plaintiff alleges that this money is allocated without a formal determination of need. After three years of "new tribes" funding, the BIA "rolled over" the Tribe's budgetary allotment into another program called Other Aid to Tribal Government. Plaintiff's complaint appears to be grounded in the allegation that the agency is not adhering to the mandates of the Federal Acknowledgement Act and as a result they are being treated differently for budget and funding purposes than "historic" tribes which are already included in the budget process.
Shirt v. Hazeltine
F.Supp.2d 976, No. Civ. 01-3032-KES
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division, Sept. 15, 2004
States. Voting Rights Act of 1965; Voting -- United States; Indians of North
America; South Dakota; Apportionment (Election law); South Dakota. Legislature
-- Election districts; Suffrage; Dilution.
American voters brought suit alleging that South Dakota legislative redistricting
plan violated Voting Rights Act. *Holding: The
District Court, Schreier, J., held that redistricting plan which established
a 90% supermajority of Indian voters in one district resulted in dilution
of Indian voting rights, in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act
(VRA). Judgment for plaintiffs.
Native American Arts, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. 2004
WL 2065065, Nos. 03 C 7233, 03 C 7234
United States District Court, N. District of Illinois, September 10, 2004
American Arts (Ill.); Hartford Casualty Insurance Co.; United States. Indian
Arts & Crafts Act.
the opinion) Plaintiff Native American Arts, Inc. ("NAA")
is an Illinois based and incorporated company that is engaged in the business
of selling Indian-made arts, crafts, and jewelry. NAA is wholly owned by
Indians. In 2001, NAA filed two lawsuits in this district that ultimately
named as defendants various subsidiaries of Stravina Operating Company,
LLC ("Stravina"). NAA alleged in both the AI and BB Litigation
that Stravina-owned companies were liable under the Indian Arts and Crafts
Act of 1990, 25
U.S.C. § 305 et seq. ("IACA"). The IACA authorizes certain
Indian groups to bring civil actions against any person who "directly
or indirectly offers or displays for sale or sells a good ... in a manner
that falsely suggests it is Indian produced.
Tribe of Oklahoma v. Town of Aurelius New York
WL 1945359, No. 5:03-CV-00690 (NPM)
United States District Court, N.D. New York, September 1, 2004
Subjects:Seneca-Cayuga
Tribe of Oklahoma; Aurelius (N.Y. : Town); Montezuma (N.Y. : Town); Cayuga
the opinion) Plaintiff, the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, a federally
recognized Indian Tribe, ("the Tribe") filed this suit against
defendants, Town of Aurelius, New York, Town of Montezuma, New York and
County of Cayuga, New York ("the Municipal Defendants") seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the nature of use and taxation
of property plaintiff owns within defendants' municipal boundaries ("the
2004 WL 3254718, No. A-04-CA-143-LY
United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division, August 18, 2004
Subjects: Texas; United States; Indian gaming
-- Class III -- Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Intergovernmental agreements
-- Texas; Intergovernmental agreements -- Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas;
Negotiation -- Texas; United States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; Good faith
the opinion) The Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas ("Kickapoo
Tribe") is an Indian tribe recognized in IGRA "by the Secretary
for the special programs and services" and as "possessing powers
of self-government." Id. § 2703(5) . In 1995 representatives
of the Kickapoo Tribe met with the Governor of Texas's staff to discuss
the possibility of negotiating a compact to conduct Class III gaming in
Texas. When the State of Texas rejected the Kickapoo Tribe's offer to negotiate
a compact, the Kickapoo Tribe filed suit on October 13, 1995, alleging
that Texas failed to negotiate in good faith under IGRA.
F.Supp.2d 1200, No. 02-4168
United States District Court, S. South Dakota, August 18, 2004
States. Mississippi Sioux Tribes Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 1998;
Judgments; United States. "Little" Tucker Act.
Americans sued United States, challenging constitutionality of statute diminishing
their share of judgment fund created due to United States' breach of two
treaties and asserting related Little Tucker Act claims for breach of trust
for delay in fund distribution. After judgment in their favor became final,
plaintiffs moved for awards of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to Equal
Access to Justice Act (EAJA). *Holding: The
District Court, Piersol, Chief Judge, held that: (1) plaintiffs were entitled
to award of attorney fees pursuant to EAJA; (2) plaintiffs could recover
fees for legal services rendered by their original counsel until he withdrew
from case; (3) plaintiffs could not recover attorney fees for legal services
performed by their original attorney after he filed his formal notice of
withdrawal of counsel; and (4) plaintiffs could recover attorney fees for
time spent by their attorney in responding to issues raised by tribes that
intervened in action. Ordered accordingly.
WL 1852987, No. 03-C-559-C
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin, Aug. 16, 2004
the opinion)Plaintiff Johnson Greybuffalo is proceeding on
the following four claims: (1) defendant Robert Novitski denied his request
to purchase medicinal herbs for smudging, (2) defendant denied his request
to allow the Native American drum singers to have practice time, (3) defendant
Michael Baenen denied his request to allot more time for the Native American
pipe and drum ceremony and Native American study group (4) defendant Bertrand
denied his proposal for a religious group for Native American inmates;
all in violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
IT IS ORDERED that: (1) The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Daniel Bertand,
Robert Novitski and Michael Baenen is GRANTED. The following claims are DISMISSED
without prejudice for plaintiff Johnson Greybuffalo's failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies: (2) Because plaintiff has no remaining claims against
defendants Baenen and Novitski, these defendants are DISMISSED from this case.
available Bruner v. United States
F.Supp.2d 1204 No. 02-CV-504-H(C)
United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma, Aug. 17, 2004
Subjects: Mines
and mineral resources -- Taxation -- Oklahoma; Mines and mineral resources
-- Indian Country (Oklahoma); Indian allotments; Restricted lands; Five Civilized
Tribes; Due process of law; United States. Constitution; Law -- United States.
*Synopsis: Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed all claims for federal income tax refunds
of Indian, as taxpayer, with regard to federal law that authorized State
of Oklahoma to tax oil and gas production on restricted Indian land. Taxpayer
brought action against United States to recover taxes paid.
District Court, Holmes, Chief Judge, held that: (1) Indian did not have vested right to exemption from taxation, and, accordingly,
no vested right had been abrogated by lapse of tax exemption; (2) Indian was not entitled to hold real property exempt from federal income
taxes simply because he was restricted from alienating that property; (3) allotment of real property taken by Indian under Curtis Act, and corresponding
tax exemption, did not give right to heir to hold that property exempt from
(4) Indian was not entitled to compensation under Fifth Amendment for lapse
of tax exemption on real property; (5) state tax on oil and gas production from restricted Indian land, authorized
by federal law, was income tax; and (6) enactment of legislation which provided for state to tax oil and gas production
on restricted Indian land was not taking, and did not offend Constitutional
principles of due process.
LaFramboise v. Thompson
F.Supp.2d 1054, No. A-4-04-011
United States District Court, D. North Dakota, NW, August 16, 2004
personnel -- Malpractice -- On Indian reservations -- Turtle Mountain Band
of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Physicians -- Malpractice -- On Indian
reservations -- Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota;
United States. Indian Health Service; United States. Dept. of Health and
Human Services; Head -- Injuries; Law -- United States; Law -- North Dakota;
Law -- Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Jurisdiction
-- United States; Jurisdiction -- North Dakota; Jurisdiction -- Turtle Mountain
Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota.
*Synopsis: Mother
brought action under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging medical malpractice
occurring during her son's treatment at a government-operated medical facility
on an Indian reservation. Government moved for summary judgment.
District Court, Hovland, Chief Judge, held that (1) North Dakota law would
be applied, and (2) under North Dakota law, failure to file expert opinion
affidavit required dismissal. Motion granted.
357 F.Supp.2d 172, No. 03-CV-2009 (RJL)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, July 30, 2004.
Subjects: Quiet title actions -- Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Four constituent bands: Battle Mountain Band; Elko Band; South Fork Band and Wells Band); United
States; Trusts and trustees -- Accounting -- United States; United States.
Indian Claims Commission. *Synopsis: Indian
tribe brought action against United States to quiet title in land and for
accounting. Government moved to transfer or dismiss.
District Court, Leon, J., held that:
(1) claims to avoid prior Indian Claims Commission judgments and for monetary
relief would be transferred to Court of Federal Claims, and
(2) quiet title claims would be transferred to district court where land was
Motion granted. The
Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Norton
F.Supp.2d 995, No. 03-C-0588-C
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin, July 30, 2004
on Indian reservations; Indian gaming; Intergovernmental agreements; United
States. Dept. of the Interior; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe
of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation
of Wisconsin (formerly known as the Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe); Lac du Flambeau
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation
of Wisconsin; Wisconsin.
*Synopsis: Two
Indian tribes sought declaratory judgment voiding a paragraph in an amendment
to a gaming compact between a third tribe and a State, which had been allowed
to go into effect without final action by the Department of the Interior
(DOI). Third tribe intervened, and DOI and intervenor moved to dismiss.
District Court, Crabb, J., held that:
(1) DOI's failure to make an affirmative or negative ruling on the proposed
amendment did not constitute reviewable final agency action; (2) dismissal was required by failure to join State and third tribe as necessary
(3) State and third tribe were indispensable parties who could not be joined
as parties; and
(4) plaintiff tribes lacked standing. Motions granted.
Beams v. Norton
F.Supp.2d 1323, No. 03-4072-JAR
United States District Court, D. Kansas, July 30, 2004
States. Civil Rights Act of 1964; United States. Indian Reorganization Act;
Sovereign immunity -- United States; Jurisdiction -- United States; Discrimination
in employment -- United States; Indian preference in hiring -- United States;
United States. Dept. of the Interior; Soil conservationists.
*Synopsis: Former
employee, proceeding pro se, sued Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), alleging
employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Indian Preference
Act (IPA). BIA moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.
District Court, Robinson, J., held that: (1) IPA did not create a private
right of action, nor a remedy, for an individual Indian; (2) court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction inasmuch as United States had not waived its
sovereign immunity to suit under IPA; and (3) complaint failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. Motion granted. Kaul v. Battese
WL 1732309, No. 03-4203-SAC
United States District Court, D. Kansas, July 27, 2004
States. Constitution. 4th Amendment; Jurisdiction -- United States; Indian
reservation police -- Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians, Kansas; Arrest;
Fireworks; Sovereign immunity -- Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians, Kansas;
Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians, Kansas -- Officials and employees; United
States. Indian Civil Rights Act.
the opinion) The plaintiff claims the defendants acting under color
of law granted to them by the Potawatomi Indian Reservation violated his
Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully arresting him without probable cause...The
plaintiff argues that tribal sovereign immunity does not protect the defendants
from individual capacity claims under § 1983.
The plaintiff asks the court to deny the defendants' motion and grant him
leave to amend the complaint as clarified in his response...[N]o action
U.S.C. § 1983 can be maintained in federal court for persons alleging
deprivation of constitutional rights under color of tribal law.... As the
purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is to enforce the provisions of the fourteenth
amendment, it follows that actions taken under color of tribal law are
beyond the reach of § 1983, and may only be examined in federal court
under the provisions of the Indian Civil rights Act. ..Thus, the plaintiff
has not alleged any claims against these defendants over which this court
would have subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). (Dk.11) is granted.
Quair v. Sisco 359
F.Supp.2d 948, No. CVF025891RECDLB
United States District Court, E.D. California, July 26, 2004
States. Indian Civil Rights Act; Exile (Punishment) -- Santa Rosa Indian
Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Santa Rosa Indian Community
of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California -- Members; Santa Rosa Indian Community
of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California -- Membership.
*Synopsis: Disenrolled
members of Indian Tribe petitioned for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), alleging that they were denied procedural
and substantive rights under ICRA in the disenrollment proceedings.
*Holding: On
cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court,
Coyle, Senior District Judge, held that:
(1) petitioners met requirements for seeking habeas review under ICRA;
(2) district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the petitions;
(3) fact issues barred summary judgment as to petitioners' claims of violations
of ICRA's due process and fair trial clauses;
(4) petitioners' rights under ICRA's excessive fines and penalties clause were
not violated;
(5) doctrine of sovereign immunity barred district court's review of petitioners'
claim that their disenrollment and banishment violated the tribe's constitution;
(6) tribal General Council's resolution excluding petitioners from the reservation
required approval of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and
(7) federal concurrence was not required in decision of tribal General Council
to disenroll petitioners.
Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana v. Pecot 351
F.Supp.2d 519, No. CIV.A.02-1512
United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, July 26, 2004
Subjects: Paragon
Casino Resort; Indian business enterprises -- Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe
of Louisiana; Sovereign immunity -- Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana;
Molds (Fungi); Tunica-Biloxi Construction Company; Hotels -- Design and construction.
*Synopsis: After
Indian tribe brought tribal court action for damages and state court action
for declaratory judgment, arising out of the discovery of mold contamination
in hotel addition to casino, subcontractors and their insurers removed state
court action and moved for partial summary judgment. *Holding: The
District Court, Little, Jr., J., held that tribal court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. Motion granted.
Native American Arts, Inc. v. The Waldron Corporation
WL 1687184, No. 01 C 2370
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division, July 23, 2004
trials -- United States; Native American Arts (U.S.); Waldron Corporation;
United States. Indian Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of 2000; Standing to
sue; Indians of North America -- Associations, institutions, etc.
the opinion) At the conclusion of a jury trial, a jury found in favor
of Defendant in this case. Plaintiffs now seek to vacate the judgment entered
against them and seek a new trial. Plaintiffs argue that this court erred
in refusing to utilize Plaintiffs' jury instruction regarding 25
C.F.R. 309.24 on the basis that the regulation is unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs also argue that the court erred in refusing to instruct the
jury in regards to 25 C.F.R. 309.24 because Plaintiffs contend that the
ruling is contrary to rulings of prior judges in the case. Plaintiffs also
claim that the court failed to instruct the jury properly on the issue
of intent and that the court erred in admitting Defendant's point of purchase
card. In addition, Plaintiffs contend that the court erred in admitting
the opinion testimony of Sherry Baskin and Linda Olson and that the court
erred in improperly instructing the jury regarding the calculation of damages.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the court erred in denying Plaintiffs' motion
for a mis-trial based on alleged personal attacks in opening arguments,
closing arguments, and that the court erred in refusing to admit the statements
of Bear Tracks employees. Plaintiffs also make various other cursory objections,
but fail to provide any basis for their position.
Wyandotte Nation v. The Unified Gov., et al
F.R.D. 490, No. CIV.A.01-2303-CM.
United States District Court, D. Kansas, July 14, 2004.
-- Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma; Quiet title actions -- Wyandotte Tribe of
Oklahoma; Kansas City (Kan.); Wyandotte County (Kan.); Extinguishment of
Indian title -- Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma; Trespass.
tribe brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment quieting title to land
located in Kansas City, Kansas. Defendants included the Unified Government
of Kansas City and Wyandotte County, Kansas, and numerous private landowners.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss.
District Court, Murguia, J., held that:
(1) sections of land alleged to have been given to the Wyandotte Nation by
the Delaware tribe in an 1843 transaction were included in the term "Wyandott
country" found in 1855 treaty between the Wyandotte Nation and the United
(2) Kansas statutes of limitation were applicable to counts of complaint by
claiming trespass, and seeking declaratory judgment quieting title, and thus
those counts were time-barred; and
(3) United States was "indispensable party" who could not be joined
in action, so that action could not in equity and good conscience proceed solely
against landowners who had no role in original issuance of patents. Motions
Taylor v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
F.Supp.2d 1117, No. 03 CV 1819-LAB BLM
United States District Court, S.D. California, July 9, 2004
Subjects: Cattle;
United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs; United States. Indian Civil Rights
Act; United States. Administrative Procedure Act; Grazing -- On Indian reservations
-- Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Cupeno Indians of the Los Coyotes Reservation,
California (formerly the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of
the Los Coyotes Reservation); Grazing rights -- United States.
*Synopsis: Cattle
owners brought action challenging Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA's) proposed
impoundment of cattle for grazing on Indian land. BIA moved to dismiss.
*Holding: The District Court, Burns, J., held that:
(1)Indian band was indispensable party, to extent claim was based on owners'
disputed assertion that they were or should be members of band; (2)owners could not assert claim based on band's violation of their civil rights. Motion granted. Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. Norton 324
F.Supp.2d 1067, No. C 04-00102-WHA.
United States District Court, N.D. California, July 1, 2004.
States. Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act; United States.
Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act; Contracts; United States. Dept. of the
Interior; Hopland Band of Pomo Indians of the Hopland Rancheria, California.
tribe brought action alleging that government violated Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA) by declining to enter into
proposed contract for law enforcement services. Government moved to dismiss. *Holding: The
District Court, Alsup, J., held that, as a matter of first impression, contractible
programs authorized by ISDEAA included tribe's request, under Indian Law
Enforcement Reform Act of 1990 (ILERA), that some of its police officers
be deputized to enforce federal law on the reservation. Motion
Related News Stories: Judge Strikes Down Wyandotte Nation Lawsuit
Seeking Industrial Land (The
Wichita Eagle) 07/15
Cermak v. Norton
F.Supp.2d 1009, No. CIV.98-1248DSDSRN
United States District Court, D. MN., June 22, 2004
lands -- Scott County (Minn.); United States. Dept. of the Interior; Norton,
Gale A.; Inheritance and succession; Trusts and trustees.
*Synopsis: Descendants
of member of Mdewakanton band of Sioux Indians sued Department of the Interior,
claiming that Department had wrongfully deprived them of their rights in
parcels of land that had been assigned to member through issuance of Indian
land certificates. *Holding: Upon
defendants' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment,
and descendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, The District Court, Doty,
J., held that: (1) descendants' Administrative Procedure Act (APA) action
was barred as to Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) 1989 transfer of the beneficial
interest of plaintiffs' ancestor's land to tribe and subsequent cancellation
of Indian land certificates where descendants failed to exhaust their available
administrative remedies; (2) Indian Board of Interior Appeals' (IBIA) refusal
to reissue Indian land certificates in favor of former certificate holder's
descendants was not arbitrary or capricious; and (3) res judicata doctrine
precluded descendants of former holder of Indian land certificates from claiming
an interest in the land. Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted. Sac
and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
F.Supp.2d 1055, No. C04-1;RR
United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, June 10, 2004
Subjects: Sac & Fox
Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs;
United States -- Officials and employees; Contested elections -- Sac & Fox
Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Federal question; Standing to sue; Jurisdiction.
tribe's election board brought action against Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
and BIA officials, objecting to BIA recognition of separate election held
by dissident group of tribe members on day of tribal council election, seeking
declaratory judgment that the BIA unlawfully interfered with tribal elections,
and seeking mandamus requiring the BIA to recognize the tribal council as
elected in election supervised by the election board. Defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *Holding: The
District Court, Reade, J., held that: (1) defendants' motion to dismiss was
a factual attack to jurisdiction, in which the court could consider competent
evidence such as affidavits, deposition testimony, and the like in order
to determine the factual dispute; (2) election board had standing to bring
the action; (3) district court had federal question jurisdiction to review,
pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), BIA's recognition of
separate election held by dissident group; and (4) district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over election board's requests for declaratory
judgment and mandamus. Ordered accordingly.
Miami Tribe of Ok v. United States of America
2004 WL 2278584, No. Civ.A.02-2591-CM
United States District Court, D. Kansas, June 8, 2004
Subjects: Miami
Tribe of Oklahoma; United States; Indian gaming -- Miami Tribe of Oklahoma;
Gambling on Indian reservations -- Oklahoma; National Indian Gaming Commission
(U.S.); Contracts.
the opinion) The court finds that, until the NIGC makes some final
decision with regard to the gaming management contract, there is not a
final agency action that would be ripe for review pursuant to the APA as
was the case in Miami III. For this court to engage in review of the determination
in the DOI's opinion letter at this point in the process would be premature
and could very possibly impede the NIGC's final determination. Accordingly,
even if the court considered plaintiff's APA claim independently of its
breach of contract claims, plaintiff's claim for equitable relief under
the APA is not based on a final agency action that is ripe for review at
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 41) is
Tidwell v. Harrah's Kansas Casino Corp.
F.Supp.2d 1200, No. 03-4016-JAR
United States District Court, D. Kansas, June 4, 2004
Subjects: Harrah's Kansas Casino Corp; Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians, Kansas; Sexual harassment;
Jurisdiction; Kansas. Act Against Discrimination.
*Synopsis: Non-tribal
employee of casino operated by non-Indian corporation pursuant to operating
agreement with Potawatomi Indian Nation filed complaint against employer,
alleging violations of Title VII and Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD).
Employer moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*Holding: The District Court, Robinson, J., held that: (1) tribal
exhaustion was required as matter of comity, not as jurisdictional prerequisite;
(2) no tribal sovereignty concerns were implicated, even though case arose
on reservation; (3) assertion of tribal court jurisdiction was not motivated
by bad faith, nor would tribal court action violate express or implied jurisdictional
prohibitions; and (4) even if tribal exhaustion applied, comity did not require
dismissal of suit. Motion denied.
Connor v. Conklin
WL 1242513, No. A4-04-50
United States District Court, D. North Dakota, June 2, 2004
members -- Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North
Dakota; Criminal actions arising in Indian Country (North Dakota) -- Three
Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Habeas
corpus; United States. Indian Civil Rights Act; Tribal courts -- Three Affiliated
the opinion) An enrolled tribal member was tried by a tribal court,
found guilty of violating the tribal code, sentenced to sixty days in the
tribal jail. The tribal member subsequently filed a petition for habeas
corpus relief under the Indian Civil Rights Act, alleging that the tribal
court failed to adequately informed him of his rights and had dismissed
his charges prior to trial.
*Holding: (from
the opinion) The Court reviewed the record and concluded that the tribal
member's allegation were devoid of merit. Consequently, the Court dismissed
the tribal member's petition for habeas corpus relief.
San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino ET AL
WL 1283584, Cases 31-CA-23673 and 31-CA-23803
National Labor Relations Board, May 28, 2004
States. National Labor Relations Board; Jurisdiction; Indian business enterprises;
United States. National Labor Relations Act; San Manuel Indian Bingo and
Casino (Calif.); San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual
Reservation, California; Gambling on Indian reservations -- San Manuel Band
of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation, California; Indian
gaming -- San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation,
California; Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union;
AFL-CIO; Communications Workers of America.
the opinion)In this case, we have been asked to reconsider
whether the Board should assert jurisdiction over a commercial enterprise
that is wholly owned and operated by an Indian tribe on the tribe's reservation...For
the following reasons, we have decided to overrule Fort Apache and Southern
Indian and to modify Sac & Fox. We establish a new standard for determining
the circumstances under which the Board will assert jurisdiction over Indian
owned and operated enterprises.
Conclusion: There may well be sound policy reasons for Congress to subject Indian-owned
and operated business enterprises, including those located within tribal sovereign
boundaries, to the full range of Federal labor and employment laws, including
Title VII and the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). As the majority correctly
notes, such statutes may not be inherently incompatible with Federal policies
favoring Indian sovereignty, self-determination and economic development. Moreover,
even if they were, Congress possesses plenary authority to abrogate Indian
sovereign rights and immunities. All that is required is a clear and express
indication that Congress has weighed the competing policy interests and resolved
them in favor of Federal authority. Because the Act evinces no such express
Congressional intent, and because the majority's analysis cannot be squared
with controlling Board and Supreme Court precedent, I respectfully dissent.
available Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation
NLRB No. 139, Case 19-CA-26663
States. Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act; Federal Indian
law; Jurisdiction; Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation (Alaska); International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. Local 959 (Alaska); United States. National Labor
Relations Board; Hospital operations -- Alaska; United States. National Labor
*Synopsis: The
facts are articulated in greater detail in our initial decision in this case.
See 328 NLRB at 761-762. Most pertinent for present purposes is that the
Respondent is a regional nonprofit corporation formed in 1969 to provide
a comprehensive health services program for Southwestern Alaska. It is governed
by a 20-member board of directors whose members are elected by the membership
of the tribal governments of 58 Alaskan Native tribes located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim
Delta area. In 1991, the Respondent took over the operation of the hospital
at issue here, under the ISDA. Only 1 or 2 members of the approximately 40
employees in the petitioned-for bargaining unit are Native Alaskans. Ninety-five
percent of the patients of the Respondent's hospital are Native Alaskans.
The Respondent does not charge Native Alaskans for the services they receive
at the hospital. Those services are covered by the annual Federal funding
the Respondent receives from the Federal Government to operate the hospital,
pursuant to Federal Government's trust responsibility to provide health care
for Indians. Our decision to
decline to assert jurisdiction here is the product of a careful balancing
of the Boards interests in advancing the Acts statutory goals
and in respecting Federal Indian law and policy. As such, we believe we have
met the D.C. Circuits mandate on remand to consider how best to accommodate
Federal Indian law. Therefore, under these circumstances, we find that jurisdiction
is not appropriate. Accordingly, we overrule our previous decision and dismiss
the complaint. ORDER The complaint is dismissed.
available Cayuga
Indian Nation of New York v. Village of Union Springs
F.Supp.2d 152, No. 5:03-CV-1270
United States District Court, N.D. New York, May 20, 2004
Subjects: Cayuga
Nation of New York; Zoning law; Land use -- Law and legislation; Union Springs
(N.Y.); Springport (N.Y.); Cayuga (N.Y.); Indian gaming -- Class II -- Cayuga
Nation of New York; Gambling on Indian reservations -- Cayuga Nation of New
*Synopsis: Local
governmental defendants filed motion for a stay pending appeal of injunction,
restraining them from enforcement of their local zoning and land use laws
so as to prohibit federally recognized Indian tribe from implementing plans
to operate a class II gaming facility on property which had already been
declared as Indian Country. *Holding: The
District Court, Hurd, J., held that:(1) defendants failed to make the requisite
showing of irreparable harm if they were not granted a stay pending appeal;(2)
defendants failed to make the requisite showing that, in the event of a stay
pending appeal, tribe would not be substantially injured; and (3) public
interest weighed in favor of denying defendants' motion.Motion denied. Azure-Lone Fight v. Cain
F.Supp.2d 1148, No. A4-04-054.
United States District Court, D. North Dakota, NW Division, May 12, 2004
Subjects: Turtle
Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Parent and child (Law);
Trials (Custody of children) -- Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians
of North Dakota; Indian children -- Legal status, laws, etc.; Child welfare;
Jurisdiction -- Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota;
Habeas corpus; United States. Indian Civil Rights Act.
petitioned for writ of habeas corpus, challenging the validity of Indian
tribal court order which granted temporary custody of her two children to
*Holding: Construing
petition as an application for habeas corpus relief under Indian Civil Rights
Act (ICRA), the District Court, Hovland, Chief Judge, held that court would
not entertain mother's petition for habeas relief. Petition denied without
v. Ho-Chunk Nation
WL 1085214, No. 03-C-0331-C
United States District Court,W.D. Wisconsin, May 7, 2004
States. Indian Civil Rights Act; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin (formerly known
as the Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe; Employees -- Dismissal of; Working mothers;
Sovereign immunity -- Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin (formerly known as the
Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe.
*Synopsis: This
is a civil suit brought under 25
U.S.C. § 1302 of the Indian Civil Rights Act in which plaintiff
Julie A. Nakai contends that defendant Ho- Chunk Nation violated the provisions
of the Act when it discharged her from employment after she had been away
from work for the birth of her child. The case is before the court on defendant's
motion to dismiss on the ground of sovereign immunity. Defendant alleges
that, as a federally recognized Indian tribe, it enjoys sovereign immunity
from suit and neither it nor Congress has waived that immunity
court concludes that plaintiff has not shown that her suit against defendant
comes within any exception to defendant's sovereign immunity so as to allow
it to go forward in this court. Therefore, defendant's motion will be granted
and the case will be dismissed. April
Wide Ruins Community School v. Chee
F.Supp.2d 1086, No. 02-CV-1958
United States District Court, D. Arizona, April 22, 2003
Nation. Navajo Preference in Employment Act; Jurisdiction -- Tribes (United
States); School principals; Indian preference in hiring; Teachers backgrounds;
Employee selection; Wide Ruins Community School (Ariz.).
the opinion) After being found liable, in tribal proceedings, for violating
Navajo Preference in Employment Act in regards to former school principal
who was not hired when school was converted to a tribal school, school
filed action alleging that federal law divested tribe of jurisdiction.
School moved for summary judgment, former principal and tribal defendants
moved to dismiss, and former principal moved for summary judgment. The
District Court, Martone, J., held that former principal's action was subject
to tribal jurisdiction. Ordered accordingly. *Holding: not
F.Supp.2d 868, No. CIV-01-2222-PHX-ROS.
United States District Court, D. Arizona, April 20, 2004. Subjects: Corrections
Corporation of America; United States. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000; Freedom of religion; Non-Indians; Prisoners; Florence
Correctional Center (Ariz.).
*Synopsis: Inmate
brought action against private prison, alleging violations of Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the Free Exercise Clause
of the First Amendment. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment, inmate
moved for sanctions, and defendants moved to strike.
District Court, Silver, J., held that issues of fact existed as to whether
prison's refusal to allow inmate, a Dianic pagan who was not a Pasqua Yaqui
or native Hawaiian, to attend Pasqua Yaqui and native Hawaiian religious
ceremonies, placed a substantial burden on inmate's religious exercise, precluding
summary judgment for both inmate and prison. Motions denied. Jicarilla Apache Nation v. The United States
Fed.Cl. 413, No. 02-25L
United States Court of Federal Claims, April 19, 2004
Subjects: Disclosure
in accounting -- United States; Tribal trust funds -- Jicarilla Apache Nation
of the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation, New Mexico; Trusts and trustees  Accounting;
Fiduciary accountability -- United States; Jicarilla Apache Nation of the
Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation, New Mexico.
tribe brought suit against the United States seeking an accounting and recovery
of monetary loss and damages resulting from the government's alleged mismanagement
of trust funds. *Holding: On
plaintiff's motion for entry of confidentiality agreement and protective
order, the Court of Federal Claims, Allegra, J., held that good cause existed
for approval and entry of confidentiality agreement and protective order.
State of South Dakota v. United States Department of the Interior
F.Supp.2d 935, No. CIV. 00-3026-RHB
United States District Court, D. South Dakota,Central Division, April 19, 2004
Subjects: Oacoma
(S.D.); Lyman County (S.D.); South Dakota; Trust lands -- Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; United States. Dept.
of the Interior. *Synopsis: The
State, city, and country sought declaratory and injunctive relief from Department
of the Interior's (DOI) plan to take a parcel of land into trust for an Indian
tribe. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Battey, J., held that (1) DOI
had rational bases for its decision to take the land into trust, and
(2) statute authorizing acquisition of land to be held in trust for
Indian tribes was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative
power. Plaintiffs' motion denied and government's motion granted.
Columbia Falls Elementary School District v. State of Montana
WL 844055, No. CIV. BDV-2002-528.
United States District Court, D. Montana, April 15, 2004
Subjects: Public
schools -- Finance -- Montana; Columbia Schools Elementary School District
(Mont.); Montana School Boards Association; Montana Rural Education Association;
School Administrators of Montana; Indian students; American Indian education;
Constitutional law. *Synopsis: This
case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Montana's current system
for funding its public elementary and secondary schools.
F.Supp.2d 902, No. A1-03-02
United States District Court, D.North Dakota, SW Division, April 14, 2004
children; Tribal members -- Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold
Reservation, North Dakota ; Trust lands -- Three Affiliated Tribes of the
Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Rent.
*Synopsis: Children
of enrolled members of Indian tribe brought action against government, alleging
that they were deprived of rental income derived from trust land mortgaged
by their parents. Government filed motion for summary judgment. *Holding: The
District Court, Hovland, Chief Judge, held that: (1) children had neither
an interest in trust land mortgaged by their parents nor an interest in the
rent proceeds collected by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and (2) any
interest possessed by children was inferior or subordinate to interests of
United States by virtue of the mortgage and the assignment executed by their
parents. Motion granted. Navajo Nation v. Peabody Holding Company, Inc.
F.Supp.2d 23, No. CIV.A. 99-0469EGS.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, April 13, 2004
leases; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; United States. Indian
Mineral Leasing Act of 1938; United States. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act; Trusts and trustees  Accounting.
tribes brought action against coal lessees, alleging that they conspired
to improperly influence federal government's decisions regarding royalty
rates under leases. Lessees moved to dismiss, or, alternatively, for summary
judgment. *Holding: The
District Court, Sullivan, J., held that collateral estoppel did not apply
to bar action. Motions denied.
Stories: Judge Won't Dismiss Navajo Nation Suit against Peabody (Indianz.com)
Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Development Company, LLC v. Roskow
WL 717131, No. 3:03CV0033 (RNC).
United States District Court, D. Connecticut, March 31, 2004
Subjects: Paucatuck
Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut; Casinos -- Design and construction
-- Connecticut; Connecticut. Unfair Trade Practices Act; United States. Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act; Indian gaming -- Connecticut; Gambling on Indian reservations
-- Connecticut; Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts Development Co., LLC.
the opinion) Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Development Company,
LLC, commenced this action in Superior Court against the Paucatuck Eastern
Pequot Tribal Nation and others after the Paucatucks repudiated an agreement
with Trump to develop a casino. The complaint alleged a violation of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110a, et seq
., intentional interference with contractual relations, civil conspiracy,
fraud and breach of contract. Defendant William I. Koch removed the case
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441 on
the ground that Trump's claims are preempted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act (IGRA), 25
U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. He was ordered to show cause
why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Trump has moved for costs and fees pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c) in the event that the case is remanded.
Shawnee Tribe v. United States
F.Supp.2d 1181, No. 03-2042-GTV.
United States District Court, D. Kansas, March 30, 2004
Subjects:United
States. General Services Administration; Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma; Indian
land transfers; Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant (Kan.); United States. Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1940; Jurisdiction -- United
States; Indian termination policy; Tribes -- Termination.
tribe sought judicial review of the General Service Administration's (GSA)
denial of its request to transfer to trust for tribe's benefit a land parcel,
allegedly within boundaries of Indian reservation, that had been declared
to be excess property available for disposal under the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act. The federal government moved to dismiss or for
summary judgment, contending that court lacked jurisdiction over majority
of tribe's claims and that GSA's decision was within the scope of its authority.
District Court held that: (1) treaty ratified by tribe and United States clearly
reflected Congressional intent to terminate reservation and give state jurisdiction
over unallotted land;(2) legislative history and circumstances surrounding
treaty ratification indicated Congressional intent to terminate Indian reservation;
and (3) GSA did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or through an abuse of its
discretion in denying tribe's request to transfer parcel to trust for tribe's
benefit. Motion granted. Related News Stories: Shawnee Tribe Loses Claim to Land of Former Sunflower Plant (Journal-World)
Burdett v. Harrah's Kansas Casino Corp. 311
F.Supp.2d 1166, No. CIV.A. 02-2166-KHV, CIV.A. 03-2189-KHV.
United States District Court, D. Kansas, March 29, 2004.
States. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; United States. Fair Credit Reporting
Act; Liability for emotional distress; Indians of North America -- Suicide;
Gamblers; Harrah's Kansas Casino Corp; Harrah's Operating Company, Inc.;
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.; Telecheck Services, Inc.; NCO Financial Systems,
Inc.; Edward T. Burke & Associates, P.C.; Creditors Interchange, Inc.;
Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians, Kansas; United States. Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act; United States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; Kansas.
Consumer Protection-Unconscionable Practice Act.
actions brought by wife of man who allegedly committed suicide as result
of debt collection activity directed at recovering debts incurred at Indian
casino, alleging, inter alia, violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
and negligent infliction of emotional distress, trial court ordered wife
to show cause why her FCRA claims should not be dismissed and her claims
against casino management company and Indian tribe should not be dismissed,
remaining defendants moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, and wife
moved for leave to respond to unopposed motions and for reconsideration.
*Holding: The District Court, Vratil, J., held that: (1) claims
that wife was entitled to recover her deceased husband's gambling losses
and that husband's checks to casino were uncollectible because the
proceeds were used to participate in gambling, failed to state a claim;(2)
reconsideration was not warranted; (3) complaint would be dismissed
where wife failed to serve defendants and defendants did not answer
the complaint or file a motion to dismiss; but (4) defendant waived
any defense as to insufficiency of service by voluntarily entering
its appearance; and (5) complaint stated a claim for negligent infliction
of emotional distress. Motions overruled in part and sustained
United States v. M.C. 311
F.Supp.2d 1281, No. CR-02-219MV.
United States District Court, D. New Mexico, March 24, 2004.
Law enforcment -- New Mexico; Law enforcement -- McKinley County (N.M.);
Law enforcment -- Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Jurisdiction;
School children; Indian students; Indian Country (U.S.) -- Defined; Criminal
investigation; United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs; Fort Wingate Indian
School (N.M.).
*Synopsis: Juvenile
defendant filed motion to dismiss, for lack of federal jurisdiction, an indictment
charging him with a murder committed at an Indian school located on land
administered by Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
District Court, Vazquez, Chief Judge, held that land on which school was
located did not constitute land set aside by the federal government for the
use of Indians as Indian land, and therefore was not a dependent Indian community.
of Laguna v. United States
Fed.Cl. 133, No. CV 02-24 L
United States Court of Federal Claims, March 19, 2004.
Subjects: Pueblo
of Laguna, New Mexico; Fiduciary accountability; Disclosure in accounting;
Tribal trust funds; Trusts and trustees -- Accounting; Uranium ores -- Pueblo
of Laguna, New Mexico.
tribe brought suit against the United States seeking an accounting and to
recover for monetary loss and damages relating to the government's alleged
mismanagement of the tribe's trust funds and other properties, including
royalties from the exploitation of uranium ore reserves on the tribe's New
Mexico reservation.
*Holding: On plaintiff's motion for document preservation order,
the Court of Federal Claims, Allegra, J., held that: (1) Court of Federal
Claims has the power to preserve evidence and issue orders in furtherance
thereof, and (2) past handling of tribal records in another tribal
breach of trust case indicating risk of loss or destruction of such
records warranted issuance of document preservation order. So
The Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Redican
F.Supp.2d 309, No. CIV.A.3:02-CV-1828(JCH). United States District Court, D. Connecticut, March 18, 2004
Pequot Tribe of Connecticut; Squatters; Internet domain names; Jurisdiction;
Law -- Connecticut; Internet -- Law and legislation; Due process of law.
tribe brought cybersquatting action against owner of website domain names
that incorporated name of tribe's casino. Owner moved to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction. *Holding: The
District Court, Hall, J., held that:(1) defendant's conduct came within Connecticut
long-arm statute, and (2) exercise of general personal jurisdiction comported
with due process. Motion denied. Cobell v. Norton
F.Supp.2d 102, No. CIV.A.96-1285(RCL).
United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 15, 2004
(Individual Indian monies) accounts; Beneficiaries; Breach of trust -- United
States; Trusts and trustees -- Accounting -- United States; Fiduciary accountability;
United States. Dept. of the Interior; Evidence, Expert. *Synopsis: After
special master, in action alleging that Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury
breached their fiduciary duties by mismanaging Individual Indian Money (IIM)
trust accounts, issued interim report, concluding that Secretary of Interior
had filed false and misleading quarterly status report for accounts it managed
with court and beneficiaries, in violation of court order, 91 F.Supp.2d 1,
Secretary moved to disqualify special master from participation in case. *Holding: The
District Court, Lamberth, J., held that: (1) disqualification of special master
was not warranted, and (2) Secretary waived its right to seek disqualification
of special master, on grounds that special master's impartiality was questionable
because he had retained services of former contractor for Department of Interior
(DOI) to assist with his investigation. Motion denied.
Relate News Stories: Lamberth Defends Special Master against
Attack (Indianz.com)
03/16, See also www.indiantrust.com,
Skeptical Appeals Court Lets Interior Computers Back Online (USAToday)
3/25. Internet Cutoff Ordered at Interior (Washington
Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California v. Schwarzenegger
WL 1103021, No. Civ.S-03-2327WBS/GGH
United States District Court, E.D. California, March 12, 2004
States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; California; Schwarzenegger, Arnold;
Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California; Good faith (Law);
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Mechoopda Tribe of the Chico Rancheria, brought this action under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., alleging that defendants, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the State of California, failed to fulfill their obligation under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A) to negotiate in good faith with the Tribe. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendants now move to dismiss this action. *Holding: not available
United States v. Orr Water Ditch DO
F.Supp.2d 1245, No. (EQUITY) A-3-LDG United States District Court, D. Nevada, March 9, 2004.
Rights -- Indian Country (Nevada); United States; Orr Water Ditch DO (Nevada);
Nevada. State Engineer; Water transfer -- Nevada; Truckee River (Calif. and
Nev.); Alluvial plains -- Indian Country (Nevada).
tribe and irrigation district cross-appealed from state engineer's partial
grant of tribe's application to temporarily change place and manner of use
*Holding: The District Court, George, J., held that: (1) tribe's water
rights were federal rights that could not be lost under theories of forfeiture,
abandonment, or failure to perfect; (2) change did not impair junior appropriators'
rights; (3) tribe was immune from paying state transfer fees; and (4) amount of water
transferred was properly limited to amount of tribe's water duty. Affirmed
in part and reversed in part.
Tribe of Nebraska v. Miller
F.Supp.2d 816, No. 4:03-CV-40400.
United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Feb. 27, 2004
Subjects: Omaha
Tribe of Nebraska; Cigarette vendors; Omaha Nation Enterprises, Inc. (Neb.);
Tobacco -- Law and legislation -- South Dakota; Tobacco -- Law and legislation
-- Iowa; Tobacco -- Law and legislation -- Missouri; South Dakota. Office
of Attorney General; Iowa. Attorney-General's Office; Missouri. Office of
Attorney General; Products liability -- Tobacco -- United States -- States;
Structured settlements -- United States -- States; Tobacco industry -- Law
and legislation -- United States -- States.
tribe that owned cigarette manufacturer brought action challenging constitutionality
of Iowa statute requiring cigarette manufacturers that did not participate
in master settlement agreement reached in multistate tobacco litigation to
either participate in the agreement or make annual escrow payments based
on tobacco product sales to Iowa consumers. Following transfer, Iowa's Attorney
General moved to dismiss. *Holding: The
District Court, Gritzner, J., held that: (1) statute was not preempted by
federal statutes supporting tribal self- determination and economic self-sufficiency;
(2) federal statutes regulating tobacco did not preempt statute; and (3)
statute did not violate Indian Commerce Clause. Motion Granted.
F.Supp.2d 1074, No. CIV 94-4294
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, February 25, 2004
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota;
Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota (formerly known as the Devils Lake Sioux
Tribe); Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation,
Montana; Constitutional law -- United States.
*Synopsis: Individual
lineal descendants of tribe brought action challenging constitutionality
and legality of the Mississippi Sioux Tribes Judgment Fund Distribution Act
of 1998 Act, which reapportioned to tribes a portion of lineal descendants'
share of judgment fund redressing United States' breach of treaties. United
States and Secretary of Interior moved to dismiss, and tribes filed motions
to intervene as defendant and to dismiss. *Holding: The
District Court, Piersol, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) claim that Act constituted taking in violation of Fifth Amendment was barred
by doctrine of issue preclusion, and
(2) entry of final judgment on dismissed claims was warranted. Motions granted. Aroostook
Band of Micmacs v. Executive Director Maine Human Rights Commission
F.Supp.2d 95, No. CIV. 03-24-B-K.
United States District Court, D. Maine, Feb. 24, 2004
-- Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians of Maine; Maine Human Rights Commission;
Maine. Maine Human Rights Act; Maine. Maine Whistle Blower Protection Act;
Maine. Maine Micmac Settlement Act; Jurisdiction -- United States; Employees
-- Dismissal of.
tribe challenged state's authority to pursue claims of tribal employment
discrimination in state court. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Kravchuk, United States Magistrate
Judge, held that court lacked federal question jurisdiction. Dismissed.
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. The United States
F.Supp.2d 1035, No. CIV.A. 02-2591-CM. United States District Court, D. Kansas, Feb. 18, 2004
Subjects: National
Indian Gaming Commission (U.S.); Indian gaming -- Class II; Gambling on Indian
reservations; Land use; Land tenure; Jurisdiction -- Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.
reversal of National Indian Gaming Commission's (NIGC) approval of a gaming
management contract relating to a tract of land in Kansas, Indian tribe brought
action for specific performance by Government of settlement in tribe's prior
action, 5 F.Supp.2d 1213, which had granted such approval. Government moved
District Court, Murguia, J., held that motion to dismiss would be denied
pending clarification of whether district court had jurisdiction to hear
claim that government's refusal to honor the settlement constituted a breach
of contract. Motion denied.
Buckles v. Indian Health Service
F.Supp.2d 1108, No. A4-02-133.
United States District Court, D. North Dakota, NW Division, Feb. 18, 2004
States. Indian Health Service -- Officials and employees; United States.
Privacy Act of 1974; Medical records; Disclosure of information -- United
Health Service (IHS) employees whose health records were allegedly disclosed
without authorization sued IHS for, inter alia, violation of Privacy Act.
Parties cross-moved for summary judgment. *Holding: The
District Court, Hovland, Chief Judge, held that: (1) IHS employees' intraagency
disclosure of incomplete Patient Care Components to member of IHS's risk
management team came within exception to Privacy Act for disclosures to officers
who needed to know, and (2) fact issue existed as to whether other unauthorized
disclosures occurred. Plaintiff's motion denied; defendant's motion granted
in part. Buckles v. Indian Health Service
in part. The Samish Indian Nation v. United States Department of Interior
2004 WL 3753251 No. C02-1955P
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, February 6, 2004
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This litigation is the latest in a series of lawsuits stretching back more than twenty years concerning plaintiffs' struggle for official recognition as a tribe and what rights and obligations arise from that status. The instant case contains two claims for relief: (1) for a mandate compelling the defendant ("Department") "to immediately consult and cooperate with the Tribe in determining the Tribe's needs for federal services, benefits and funding, to develop a budget to fund the Tribe's ... need for federal services and benefits ... and to submit said budget to Congress for appropriation and funding ..." and (2) for money damages "for the amount of federal funding the Tribe would have received under the [Indian] Self-Determination Act from 1996 to the present if the Department had timely consulted with the Tribe and developed a determination of needs and a recommended budget."
Flathead Joint Board of Control v. U.S. Dept. of Interior
F.Supp.2d 1217, No. CV 02-38-M-DWM
United States District Court, D. Montana, February 3, 2004.
rights -- Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Confederated
Tribes of, Montana; United States. Freedom of Information Act; United States.
Bureau of Indian Affairs; United States. Bureau of Reclamation; Resource
allocation -- Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Confederated
Tribes of, Montana; Montana; Flathead Joint Board of Control (Mont.); Montana.
Water Use Act; United States. Dept. of the Interior.
F.Supp.2d 929, No. CIV-S-02-1314DFL/JFM.
United States District Court, E.D. California, Feb. 13, 2004
Subjects: Pit
River Tribe, California (includes Big Bend, Lookout, Montgomery Creek & Roaring
Creek Rancherias & XL Ranch); United States. Bureau of Land Management;
United States. Forest Service; Geothermal leases -- California; Geothermal
power plants -- California -- Environmental impact statements -- Environmental
aspects; United States. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; United
States. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; United States. Geothermal
Steam Act of 1970; United States. National Forest Management Act of 1976;
United States. Administrative Procedure Act; Breach of trust -- United States;
American tribe brought action against Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
United States Forest Service (USFS), stemming from government's proposal
to build geothermal power plant on site within tribe's ancestral homeland.
*Holding: On the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment,
the District Court, Levi, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) final environmental impact statement (FEIS) sufficiently discussed probable
environmental consequences of plant;
(2) agencies properly identified historic properties on site;
(3) underlying lease of site was properly extended;
(4) lifting of moratorium on site development was not arbitrary and capricious;
(5) amendment of forest standard to accommodate plant development did not constitute
significant change to Forest Plan;
(6) federal government did not breach fiduciary obligation to tribe; and
(7) purported failure of agencies timely to implement Record of Decision did
not constitute "final agency action.
Related News Stories: Judge Won't Block Drilling near Sacred Site in Calif. (Indianz.com)
03/12 Tarbell v. Department of the Interior
F.Supp.2d 409, No. CIV.A.7:02-CV-1072(D.
United States District Court, N.D. New York, Feb. 11, 2004
States. Dept. of the Interior; Judicial review; St. Regis Band of Mohawk
Indians of New York; Leadership disputes; Faction.
*Synopsis: Members
of Indian tribe commenced action seeking judicial review of four distinct
Department of the Interior (DOI) administrative agency actions relating to
a longstanding dispute over leadership of the tribe.
*Holding: Upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the District
Court, Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, held that administrative
determinations regarding who federal government should recognize for
purposes of its dealings with a tribe as duly authorized leaders and
authority of tribal courts were arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs
Flathead Joint Board of Control v. United States Department of the Interior
United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division, Feb. 3, 2004.
States. Freedom of Information Act; Resource allocation -- Salish & Kootenai
Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Confederated Tribes of, Montana; Water
Tribes of, Montana; United States. Bureau of Reclamation; United States.
*Synopsis: State
irrigation district negotiating state water rights with Indian tribes sued
United States, seeking disclosure under Freedom of Information Act(FOIA)
of federal water rights information. Tribes intervened and all parties moved
for summary judgment.>
District Court, Molloy, Chief Judge, held that:(1) information regarding
allocation of water rights on reservations was "commercial or financial
information" for purposes of FOIA exception covering those materials;
(2) specified information could be withheld as privileged and confidential;
(3) tribes were not "agencies," for purposes of intra and inter-agency
FOIA exception; (4) documents prepared by federal agency employees and not
given to tribes could be withheld under deliberative process, attorney-client
or work product privileges.
Poor Bear v. Nesbit
F.Supp.2d 904, No. 8:03CV261
United States District Court, District of Nebraska, January 29, 2004
Subjects: Nebraska
State Patrol; Sheridan County (Neb.); Nebraska. Liquor Control Commission;
Freedom of religion; Civil rights; Processions, Religious; Indians of North
America -- Compensation for taking; Land tenure; United States. Constitution.
1st Amendment; United States. Constitution. 4th Amendment; United States.
Constitution. 5th Amendment; United States. Constitution. 9th Amendment;
United States. Constitution. 14th Amendment; Limitation of actions; United
States. Constitution. 11th Amendment.
*Synopsis: Arrestee
brought § 1983 action against state patrol superintendent, sheriff,
and three members of liquor control commission, alleging restrictions on
his ability to participate in Native American prayer marches, laxity in law
enforcement, and other violations of First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments. Defendants moved to dismiss.
District Court, Kopf, Chief Judge, held that: (1) to extent that claims for
monetary, declaratory, and injunctive or equitable relief would render invalid
Nebraska criminal conviction for violating the lawful order of law enforcement
officers, claims were barred; (2) claims accruing more than four years before
the filing of complaint were barred by Nebraska statute of limitations; (3)
to extent claims sought money damages and declaratory relief against State
defendants in their official capacities, claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment;
(4) Eleventh Amendment barred claims for conversion and unjust enrichment;
(5) sheriff was not a policy maker for his county; (6) allegation that Native
Americans were prosecuted for their religious practices failed to state a
claim; and (7) dismissal was required, of allegations of a policy of minimal
law enforcement when crime victims were Native Americans. Motion granted.
Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan v.
360 F.Supp.2d 64, No. 01-CV-2672 (RJL)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, Jan. 27, 2004
Subjects: Indian gaming -- Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan;
Internet gambling; United States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
tribe sought declaration that its proposed Internet proxy bingo game was
authorized under Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The defendant National
Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) moved to dismiss.
District Court, Leon, J., held that nonfinal agency action was not subject
to judicial review. Motion granted.
20 F.Supp.3d 777
Case No. 9213.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, Filed Jan. 16, 2004. Compilation of major post-trial substantive orders (January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006).
*Synopsis: United States, on its own behalf and as trustee for various Indian tribes, brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief against State of Washington and others concerning off-reservation treaty right fishing. Various tribes intervened.
*Holding: On various motions, the District Court, Robert S. Lasnik and Ricardo S. Martinez, JJ., and Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, held that:
(1) tribe demonstrated strong likelihood of success on merits of dispute regarding implementation of plan governing treaty right to harvest shellfish from tidelands;
(2) district court had jurisdiction to clarify usual and accustomed fishing grounds as defined under prior court order;
(3) request for clarification of usual and accustomed fishing grounds of Suquamish Tribe under treaty as defined in prior court order was barred by the doctrine of res judicata;
(4) delay of opening of state's commercial non-tribal Dungeness Crab fishery was warranted; and
(5) documents generated during settlement proceedings between Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and Lummi Nation were admissible.
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. Kline
F.Supp.2d 1291, No. 02-4070-JTM
United States District Court, D. Kansas, Jan. 15, 2004
Subjects: Nebraska;
Motor fuels -- Taxation -- Nebraska; Indian business enterprises -- Winnebago
Tribe of Nebraska -- Taxation; United States. Constitution. 11th Amendment;
United States. Tax Injunction Act; Sovereign immunity; United States -- Hayden-Cartwright
tribes challenged state's right to collect motor vehicle fuel taxes from
tribally-operated businesses. State moved to dismiss. *Holding: The
District Court, Marten, J., held that: (1) tribe was not "person" who
could sue under § 1983; (2) Eleventh Amendment did not bar suit; (3)
Tax Injunction Act did not bar tribes' suit, but did bar claims by individual
tribal members; (4) principles of comity did not warrant dismissal of suit;
(5) abstention was not warranted; (6) complaint stated sovereign immunity
claim; and (7) suit was not barred by Hayden-Cartwright Act. Motion granted
Arakaki v. Lingle 305
F.Supp.2d 1161, No. CIV.02-00139 SOM/KSC.
United States District Court, D. Hawai'i, Jan. 14, 2004
Subjects: Hawaii.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Taxation -- Hawaii; Equality before the law --
Hawaii; Finance -- United States.
taxpayers brought action challenging constitutionality of programs administered
by Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), asserting, inter alia, alleged equal
protection violation arising from OHA's provision of benefits. OHA moved
to dismiss. *Holding: The
District Court, Mollway, J., held that: (1) state taxpayer standing was insufficient
to support challenge to OHA's use of state tax revenues to satisfy prerequisites
to receiving matching federal funds; (2) motion was not untimely motion for
reconsideration of earlier decision denying OHA's motion to dismiss based
on political question doctrine; and (3) political question doctrine applied
to bar court's review of equal protection claim. Motion granted; final judgment
for state entered. Big Crow v. Rattling Leaf
F.Supp.2d 1067, No. A1-03-28
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division, Jan 2, 2004
reservation police; United States. Federal Tort Claims Act; Traffic accidents.
*Synopsis: Tribal
law enforcement officer, as defendant in Federal Tort Claims Act suit arising
out of automobile accident, petitioned for certification that he was acting
within scope of his office or employment.
*Holding:The
District Court, Kornmann, J., held that officer was acting within scope of
his employment, even if he was being paid under different tribal self-determination
contract than one being performed at time of accident. Petition