Case Summaries
[08/20] Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians v. State of California
In an action by Indian tribes claiming a breach of Gaming Compacts between the tribes and California, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where the limit on licenses in the Compacts exceeded that recognized by California.
[08/09] Oneida Indian Nation v. Cty. of Oneida
In an action by the Oneida Indian Nation claiming that the State of New York wrongfully appropriated its lands, partial summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where Cayuga was controlling, and thus all claims dependent on the assertion of a current possessory interest in the subject lands were barred by equitable defenses. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) plaintiffs' purportedly nonpossessory claim was also barred, both by New York’s sovereign immunity and by the equitable principles applied in Cayuga; and 2) on the same basis, the alternative nonpossessory claim articulated on appeal by the plaintiffs, premised on a violation of the Nonintercourse Act, was also barred.
[08/05] US v. I.L.
A district court's order transferring defendant for adult criminal prosecution on assault and murder charges is affirmed where the district court correctly construed 18 U.S.C. section 5032 to grant the authority to transfer defendant for adult criminal prosecution without the Omaha Tribe's consent.
[08/03] US v. Cook
Defendant's sentence for engaging in and attempting to engage in sexual contact with the intent to abuse the victim in Indian country is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant's criminal history category understated his actual criminal history and likelihood of recidivism.
[07/30] Bingham v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
In plaintiffs' Takings Clause suit against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Town of Mashpee, framed as a class action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated descendants of the Mashpee Wampanoag Indians, district court's dismissal of the suit concluding that plaintiffs lack standing is affirmed as there is no jurisdiction to hear the case because, even when viewing all factual allegations in plaintiffs' favor, plaintiffs cannot show they have suffered a personal injury as a result of the challenged state actions.
[07/30] Menominee Indian Tribe v. US
In a breach-of-contract action by a government contractor, the district court's dismissal of the action is reversed where: 1) the limitations period in 41 U.S.C. section 605(a) was subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases; and 2) the district court incorrectly calculated the length of the tribe's delay in filing suit.
[07/28] In re Skyler H.
Trial court's findings in terminating petitioner's parental rights to her eleven-year-old daughter is affirmed where: 1) the trial court has discretion to consider the totality of the information presented concerning the child's family circumstances to determine whether it meets the threshold required for ICWA notice ("the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child"); 2) ICWA notice is not required unless the totality of the family's circumstances indicate there is a low but reasonably probability the child is an Indian child; 3) here, the case need not be remanded for ICWA notice because the family's specific but attenuated Indian heritage does not provide reason to know the child is an Indian child; 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the parent did not show a prima facie case of changed circumstances and best interests of the child, and in summarily denying the parent's petition for modification under section 388; and 5) there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply.
[07/13] Butte Cty. v. Hogen
In an action by a county under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging the Department of the Interior's approval of an Indian tribe's gaming ordinance, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where the Department failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision.
[07/12] A.A. v. Needville Indep. Sch. Dist.
In an action by a Native American boy and his parents challenging a school district's requirement that he wear his long hair in a bun on top of his head or in a braid tucked into his shirt, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where the restriction violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act because plaintiff demonstrated a sincere religious belief in wearing his hair uncovered and visibly long.
[07/12] Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Okla. Tax. Comm.
In an action by an Indian tribe challenging Oklahoma's seizure of cigarettes failing to bear a tax stamp from the tribe, a dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's claims because plaintiff, in effect, sought to render nugatory, via the Fourth Amendment, the state's cigarette tax enforcement scheme as an affront to Indian sovereignty.
[07/09] Gillette v. N. Dakota Disciplinary Bd.
In an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief preventing an attorney disciplinary board from prosecuting a disciplinary action for alleged misconduct arising out of plaintiff's representation of Native American clients in tribal court litigation, dismissal of the action is affirmed where the three prerequisites to Younger abstention were present in this case: (1) an ongoing state judicial proceeding that (2) implicates an important state interest and (3) affords an adequate opportunity to raise federal statutory and constitutional challenges.
[07/07] Attorney's Process & Investigation Servs., Inc. v. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Miss. in Iowa
In an action by a company which provides security and consulting services to casino operators, seeking a declaratory judgment that an Indian tribal court lacked jurisdiction and an order compelling arbitration, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the tribal courts could exercise adjudicatory jurisdiction over the tribe's claims against plaintiff for trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion of tribal trade secrets. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the tribal court did not have jurisdiction under the second Montana exception over the tribe's claim for conversion of tribal funds.
[06/23] EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co.
In an action by the EEOC alleging that, in maintaining its employment preference for Navajo workers, defendant discriminated against non-Navajo Indians, including two members of the Hopi Nation and one member of the Otoe tribe, in violation of Title VII, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) the amended complaint filed by the EEOC after remand did not render it infeasible to join the Navajo Nation; 2) the Secretary of the Interior was a required party under Rule 19(a), and joining him was not feasible; 3) plaintiff could not bring a third-party damages claim against the Secretary under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a), and that EEOC's claim against defendant for damages must therefore be dismissed under Rule 19(b); and 4) plaintiff could bring a third-party claim against the Secretary for prospective relief under Rule 14(a), and therefore EEOC's injunctive claim against defendant should be allowed to proceed.
[06/15] Hydro Resources, Inc. v. EPA
In a petition for review of the EPA's "final land status determination" expressing its judgment that petitioner's land qualified as "Indian land," the petition is granted where the EPA's interpretation cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court's explanation of 18 U.S.C. section 1151(b)'s plain meaning.
[06/07] Iowa Tribe of Ks. v. Salazar
In an action by an Indian tribe claiming that the Secretary of the Interior improperly took a small tract of land into trust on behalf of the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma, plaintiffs' appeal from dismissal of the action is dismissed where the Secretary had already taken the land at issue into trust, and sovereign immunity thus precluded the relief sought by plaintiffs.
Back to Main
