Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe v. Department of the Interior (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) History: in the district court for Nevada, plaintiff sought a TRO and PI to bar construction of an approved geothermal facility. Court issued a TRO and PI but denied to extend the injunctions beyond 90 days. Holding: Affirming the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief beyond a limited period of ninety days because the balance of hardships was in favor of the defendant-intervenor, who stood to lose $30 million over 20 years, after ninety days and the injunction was not in the public interest, which would provide carbon-free baseload electricity, and state and local taxes. Topics: Geothermal Projects; Cultural Sites; Sacred Sites Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. Cal. (U.S. Court of Appeals - Ninth Circuit) The Court held that California failed to act in good faith during the Class III gaming compact negotiations with the Chicken Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, the Blue Lake Rancheria, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, and Robinson Rancheria by demanding that the tribes agree to compact provisions relating to family law, environmental regulation, and torts that were unrelated to the operation of gaming activities. This was outside the bounds of permissible negotiation under IGRA and triggered IGRA’s remedial provision. Topics: Gaming; IGRA; Good Faith Requirements Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges v. Haaland (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit) In March 2022, the 9 th Circuit approved the land exchange to allow King Cove Corp., a Native Alaskan village corporation, to build a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. In November, the non- recused active judges vacated the March 2022 opinion and ordered a rehearing en banc. Topics: Land Exchange; Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act United States v. Fowler (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) Plaintiff, Eric Fowler, a tribal member, brought suit alleging that a state trooper did not have jurisdiction to stop and search his car on a highway that runs through the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Court held that because the cross-deputization agreement between the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the State of Montana was valid, the state trooper was validly deputized to enforce tribal law and he had jurisdiction to seize and search the Defendant’s truck. Topics: Criminal Procedure; Cross-deputization Agreements Metlakatla Indian Cmty. v. Dunleavy (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) The Metlakatla Indian Community brought suit against Alaskan officials, claiming that the 1891 Act granted the Community and its members the right to fish in off-reservation waters where they had traditionally fished, and that they were not subject to an Alaska statutes limited entry program for commercial fishing in certain designated waters. The district court dismissed this, and the 9 th Circuit reversed, holding that there was an implied fishing right in the 1891 Act, allowing for the Community to bring suit, and the 1891 Act preserved an implied right to non-exclusive off-reservation fishing. Topics: 1891 Act; fishing rights San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Becerra (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) The Court held that Indian Health Service owed the San Carlos Apache Tribe additional contract support costs because the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 required payment of contract support costs for third-party-funded portion of the Federal Healthcare program operated by the Tribe. Topics: Healthcare; Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975; Sovereignty
19
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs