DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States Court of Federal Claims Case 1:12-cv-00836-ECH Document 10 Filed 04/22/13 Page 1 of 51 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ______________________________________ ) ) SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION, ) NO. 1:12-CV-00836-ECH ) Plaintiff, ) Chief Judge Emily C. Hewitt ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ______________________________________ ) PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS Case 1:12-cv-00836-ECH Document 10 Filed 04/22/13 Page 2 of 51 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………..3 I. STANDARD APPLICABLE TO MOTION TO DISMISS…………………........3 II. BACKGROUND FACTS UNDERLYING THE CLAIMS IN THIS CASE……..4 (A) The District Court Decision And Judgment in Shinnecock Land Claim………………………………………………………………..4 (B) The Change in the Law Applicable to Indian Non-Intercourse Act Land Claims in the Second Circuit……………………………………..5 (C) United States’ Current And Recent Litigation Position Regarding The Second Circuit’s Cayuga And Oneida Decisions………………..11 III. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ARE RIPE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT……………………………………………………………………..15 IV. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATES CLAIMS FOR RELIEF UNDER MONEY-MANDATING PROVISIONS OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW OVER WHICH THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER THE INDIAN TUCKER ACT…………………………………………………………………….18 (A) Plaintiff States A Claim For A Judicial Taking In Violation Of The Fifth Amendment to The U.S. Constitution………………………..18 (B) Plaintiff States A Claim For Judicial Breach Of The United States’ Trust Obligations Under the Indian Non-Intercourse Act……………..24 (C) Plaintiff States A Non-Tort Claim Under The Common Law For A Judicial Breach Of The United States’ Human Rights Obligations Under International Law……………………………………………………29 V. NONE OF THE OTHER LEGAL DEFENSES RAISED BY DEFENDANTS BAR PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS………………………………………………………..37 (A) Plaintiff Does Not State A Claim Based Directly Upon the Indigenous Rights Declaration Or Upon Any Treaty or Convention…………………37 (B) Plaintiff Does Not State Claims For Federal Agency Action Or Inaction……………………………………………………………………38 (C) Plaintiff Does Not State Claims That Were Within The Jurisdiction Of The Indian Claims Commission…………………………………………39 i Case 1:12-cv-00836-ECH Document 10 Filed 04/22/13 Page 3 of 51 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Alabama v. North Carolina, 130 S.Ct. 2295 (2010) ............................................................................................... 25 Agwiak v. United States, 347 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 40 Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas v. United States, 3-83, 2000 WL 1013532 (Fed. Cl. June 19, 2000) ............................................... 30, 32 Al-Quasi v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 439 (2012) ............................................................................................. 40 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 ................................................................................................................ 6 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) .................................................................................................. 14 Banks v. Garrett, 901 F.2d 1084 (Fed.Cir.1990) ..................................................................................... 8 Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 56 Fed.Cl. 453 (2003) ................................................................................................ 20 Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................... 7 Blanchette v. Connecticut Gen. Ins. Corporations, 419 U.S. 102 (1974) .................................................................................................. 23 ii Case 1:12-cv-00836-ECH Document 10 Filed 04/22/13 Page 4 of 51 Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) .................................................................................................. 33 Cape Fox Corp. v. United States, 4 Cl.Ct. 223 (1983) .................................................................................................... 34 Caraco Pharm. Labs., 527 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................. 20 Catawba Indian Tribe v. United States, 982 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ........................................................................... 21, 25 Cayuga Indian Nation v. Cuomo,, No. 80-CIV-930, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10579 (N.D.N.Y. July 1, 1999) .................... 15 Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ passim Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F.2d 266 (2d Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................... 28 Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir.1993) .................................................................................... 21 City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) ............................................................................................ 10, 11 County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226, 105 S.Ct. 1245, 84 L.Ed.2d 169 (1985) ............................ 11, 17, 25, 27 Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901) .................................................................................................. 33 Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 372 F.2d 1002 (Ct.Cl. 1967) ...................................................................................... 39 iii Case 1:12-cv-00836-ECH Document 10 Filed 04/22/13 Page 5 of 51 Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960) .............................................................................................. 29, 32 Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 8, 9, 40 Fort Sill Apache Tribe v. United States, 201 Ct.Cl. 630, 477 F.2d 1360 (1973) ....................................................................... 29 Gardner v. Toilet Goods Ass'n, 387 U.S. 167 (1967) .................................................................................................. 21 Gimbernat v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 350 (2008) ............................................................................................... 41 Gollehon Farming v. United States, 207 F.3d 1373 (Fed.Cir.2000) ..................................................................................... 8 Greenlee County v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................... 40 Heckman v. United States, 224 U.S. 413 (1912) .................................................................................................. 29 Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978) .................................................................................................... 19 Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 855 F.2d 1673, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 21 Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 534 F.2d 889 (Ct. Cl. 1976) ....................................................................................... 41 Hughes v. State of Washington, 389 U.S. 290 (1967) ........................................................................................... passim iv Case 1:12-cv-00836-ECH Document 10 Filed 04/22/13 Page 6 of 51 Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 647, 680 F.2d 122 (Ct.Cl. 1982) ............................................................... 34 Joint Tribal Council of Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 388 F.Supp. 649 (D. Me. 1975). ................................................................................ 31 Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1975) ............................................................................... passim Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) .................................................................................................. 38 Lummi Tribe of Lummi Reservation v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 584 (Fed. Cl. 2011) ................................................................................. 40 Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) .................................................................................................. 35 Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 607 F.2d 1335 (Ct.Cl. 1979) ...................................................................................... 34 Mitchell v. United States, 664 F.2d 265 (Ct.Cl. 1981) ........................................................................................ 34 Mohegan Tribe, 638 F.2d at 615 ......................................................................................................... 12 Nat'l Park Hospitality Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (2003) ............................................................................................ 20, 21 Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 15, 28 Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, 719 F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 1983) ................................................................................. 10, 14 v Case 1:12-cv-00836-ECH Document 10 Filed 04/22/13 Page 7 of 51 Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. New York, 691 F.2d 1070 (2d
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shinnecock Brief
    08-1194-cv(L) 08-1195-cv(CON) United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE RACING AND WAGERING BOARD, AND NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, Plaintiffs-Appellees, TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, Consolidated-Plaintiff-Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ADDED TO THIS ACTION AS AN INVOLUNTARY PLAINTIFF BY COURT ORDER DATED 12/22/03, Plaintiff, – v. – SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION, LANCE A. GUMBS, RANDALL KING, KAREN HUNTER, AND FREDERICK C. BESS, SHINNECOCK TRIBE, Defendants-Appellants. CHARLES K. SMITH, II, JAMES W. ELEAZER, JR., FRED BESS, AND PHILIP D. BROWN, Defendants.1 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (Continued on inside cover) 1 Official Caption required by notice from the Clerk of the Second Circuit dated May 7, 2008. (Continued from outside cover) BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT THE SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION AND ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS Of Counsel: CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON Evan A. Davis LLP Christopher H. Lunding, Senior Counsel One Liberty Plaza Ashika Singh New York, New York 10006 (212) 225-2000 Attorneys for all Defendants-Appellants TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................... iv PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ............................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........................... 3 STATEMENT
    [Show full text]
  • GENEALOGICAL RESOURCES in the Celia M
    LONG ISLAND & NEW YORK STATE GENEALOGICAL RESOURCES In the Celia M. Hastings Local History Room of the Patchogue-Medford Library As well as selected links from the PML Local History Website Revised, edited, expanded, with selected surname additions by Mark H. Rothenberg Wyandanch Austin Roe Walt Whitman Theodore Bessie Coleman Jacqueline Billy Joel Bill O’Reilly Roosevelt Pioneer Aviator Kennedy Onassis General See also Long Island Families • American Families of Historic Lineage, Long Island Edition, 2 vols., issued under the editorial supervision of William S. Pelletreau and John Howard Brown. New York: National Americana Society, [n.d.]. – LI REF 929 P • Empire State Notables, 1914. New York: H. Stafford, 1914. – NY REF 920.0747 EMP • Genealogies of Long Island Families from the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, 2 vols. Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2000. – LI REF 929.3747 GENE v. 1-2 • Historic Homes and Institutions and Genealogical and Family History of New York, [comp.] by William S. Pelletreau, 4 vols. New York; Baltimore, MD: [s.n.]; Repr. for Clearfield Co., Inc., by Genealogical Puyblishing Co., Inc., 1907, repr. 1998. – NY REF 929.3747 PEL • “Individuals and Families.” In Index of Articles on Long Island Studies in Journals and Conference Volumes, com. by Natalie A. Naylor. Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University. Long Island Studies Institute, 2001: pp. 62-65. – LI REF 974.721 R-LI-4 NAY • Long Island and Patchogue Vertical File Subject Headings (Patchogue-Medford Library. Celia M. Hastings Local History Room) • Long Island Genealogical Source Material [A Bibliography], [comp. and ed.] by Herbert Furman Seversmith and Kenn Stryker-Rodda.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Habitat Modifications to Sandy Beaches ME-NY Rice 2015
    Inventory of Habitat Modifications to Sandy Beaches in the U.S. Atlantic Coast Breeding Range of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) prior to Hurricane Sandy: Maine to the North Shore and Peconic Estuary of New York1 Tracy Monegan Rice Terwilliger Consulting, Inc. June 2015 Recovery Task 1.2 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Recovery Plan for the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) prioritizes the maintenance of “natural coastal formation processes that perpetuate high quality breeding habitat,” specifically discouraging the “construction of structures or other developments that will destroy or degrade plover habitat” (Task 1.21), “interference with natural processes of inlet formation, migration, and closure” (Task 1.22), and “beach stabilization projects including snowfencing and planting of vegetation at current or potential plover breeding sites” (Task 1.23) (USFWS 1996, pp. 65-67). This assessment fills a data need to identify such habitat modifications that have altered natural coastal processes and the resulting abundance, distribution, and condition of currently existing habitat in the breeding range. Four previous studies provided these data for the United States (U.S.) continental migration and overwintering range of the piping plover (Rice 2012a, 2012b) and the southern portion of the U.S. Atlantic Coast breeding range (Rice 2014, 2015a). This assessment provides these data for one habitat type – namely sandy beaches within the northern portion of the breeding range along the Atlantic coast of the U.S. prior to Hurricane Sandy. A separate report assessed tidal inlet habitat in the same geographic range prior to Hurricane Sandy (Rice 2015b). Separate reports will assess the status of these two habitats in the northern and southern portions of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Honorable Dan Boren, GAO House of Representatives April 2012 INDIAN ISSUES Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes GAO-12-348 April 2012 INDIAN ISSUES Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Highlights of GAO-12-348, a report to the Honorable Dan Boren, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found As of January 3, 2012, the United Of the approximately 400 non-federally recognized tribes that GAO identified, States recognized 566 Indian tribes. 26 received funding from 24 federal programs during fiscal years 2007 through Federal recognition confers specific 2010. Most of the 26 non-federally recognized tribes were eligible to receive this legal status on tribes and imposes funding either because of their status as nonprofit organizations or state- certain responsibilities on the federal recognized tribes. Similarly, most of the 24 federal programs that awarded government, such as an obligation to funding to non-federally recognized tribes during the 4-year period were provide certain benefits to tribes and authorized to fund nonprofit organizations or state-recognized tribes. In addition, their members. Some tribes are not some of these programs were authorized to fund other entities, such as tribal federally recognized but have qualified communities or community development financial institutions. for and received federal funding. Some of these non-federally recognized For fiscal years 2007 through 2010, 24 federal programs awarded more than tribes are state recognized and may be $100 million to the 26 non-federally recognized tribes. Most of the funding was located on state reservations.
    [Show full text]
  • Shinnecock Indian Nation Climate Change Adaptation Plan
    SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PLAN October 2013 Letter of Commitment from the Shinnecock Indian Nation Since time immemorial, we have been gifted by the Creator with specific values and responsibilities as Shinnecock people to: Teach and promote spirituality, respect, responsibility, integrity, and unity in order to promote and ensure the health, well-being, and safety of individuals, community, and the Nation Preserve and promote our sovereignty and freedom of self-determination in order to advance the common good of the people and Nation. Restore, maintain, and foster our Shinnecock Culture, values, traditions, and human rights; Conserve, manage, and utilize our tribal lands, natural and cultural resources in a sustainably appropriate manner while balancing our economic growth and community needs. In all economic development, the Shinnecock Nation will seek to insure that such opportunities are culturally sensitive and protect and preserve the soundness of our environment. In keeping with our Vision Statement for Shinnecock “Quality of Life,” we support the initiation and ongoing development of the Shinnecock Climate Change Adaptation Plan; in order to protect what we value and hold sacred as The People of the Stony Shore. Shinnecock Indian Nation Council of Trustees Executive Summary Planning Process The Shinnecock Environmental Department and the Natural Resource Committee had begun researching climate change, and particularly the impacts on surface water and ocean acidification, because of tribal shellfish cultivation. The next large concern was the increasing shoreline erosion, which is contributing to the loss of trees. The staff began researching other climate change issues that were impacting the region as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Updating State Reservations
    2010 Census Tribal Statistical Areas Program Guidelines for Updating State Reservations Version 1 January 2009 1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 3 2. Background on the State Reservation Program ........................................................ 4 2.1 Eligibility.................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Schedule ................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Program Materials.................................................................................................. 6 2.4 Boundary Feature Updates .................................................................................... 7 3. Criteria........................................................................................................................... 8 4. Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Annotating Maps..................................................................................................... 8 4.1.1 Procedures for Reviewing and Revising an Existing State AIR ....................... 8 4.1.2 Procedures for Delineating a New State AIR .................................................... 9 4.2 Transmitting Completed Submissions and Census Bureau Review ................ 11 4.3 Verification ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Habitat Modifications to Sandy Oceanfront Beaches in the U.S
    INVENTORY OF HABITAT MODIFICATIONS TO SANDY OCEANFRONT BEACHES IN THE U.S. ATLANTIC COAST BREEDING RANGE OF THE PIPING PLOVER (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) AS OF 2015: MAINE TO NORTH CAROLINA January 2017 revised March 2017 Prepared for the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Terwilliger Consulting, Inc. Tracy Monegan Rice [email protected] Recommended citation: Rice, T.M. 2017. Inventory of Habitat Modifications to Sandy Oceanfront Beaches in the U.S. Atlantic Coast Breeding Range of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) as of 2015: Maine to North Carolina. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 295 p. 1 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Development ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Public and NGO Beachfront Ownership ............................................................................................... 9 Beachfront Armor ............................................................................................................................... 10 Sediment Placement ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION Shinnecock Indian Territory PO Box
    SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION Shinnecock Indian Territory P.O. Box 5006 Southampton, New York 11969-5006 Phone (631)283-6143 ext.2 Fax(631)283-0751 The oldest self-governing Tribe of Indians in the United States May 18, 2020 Testimony of Lance A. Gumbs, Vice Chair, Shinnecock Indian Nation, Northeastern Regional Alt. Vice President, National Congress of American Indians Good Morning Honorable Committee and Task Force Chairs and esteemed members. My name is Lance A. Gumbs, I am Vice Chairman of the Shinnecock Indian Nation and Northeastern Regional Alt. Vice President of the National Congress of American Indians. I am honored by the opportunity to appear before you today to help you understand the unique circumstances of Native Peoples in New York in confronting the current pandemic. I am aware that, despite the numerous committees and task forces that convened this hearing, there is no Native American Task Force or Committee charged with addressing our well-being. I come before you as an elected tribal leader and as an elected Board Member of the largest intergovernmental Native American organization in the United States. The impact on my community is similar to that on Native communities across the country. You may have heard, on the news, that the impact of Covid 19 in Native communities has been devastating. As we speak, the Navajo Nation, spread over four states, has a rate of infection second only to New York State. Smaller tribes in New Mexico face the possibility of total extinction. At Shinnecock, we have avoided that result only through stringent measures we put in place to protect our people.
    [Show full text]
  • Lost in the Shuffle: State-Recognized Tribes and the Tribal Gaming Industry
    Lost in the Shuffle: State-Recognized Tribes and the Tribal Gaming Industry By ALExA KOENIG* AND JONATHAN STEIN** "Perhapsthe most basic principle of all Indian law . .. is the principle that those powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe are not, in general, delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather inher- ent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished .... What is not expressly limited remains within the domain of tribal sovereignty." -Felix S. Cohen1 FEDERAL RECOGNITION of Native American tribes, and the rights that attend such recognition, has rarely been the subject of such wide- spread interest as it is today. Tribes are redefining their place in soci- ety based on the influx of money and power that has come with tribal gaming-a right currently afforded only to federally-recognized tribes. In just fifteen years, between 1988 and 2003, the tribal gaming industry has grown from $100 million to more than $15 billion.2 Ac- * Alexa Koenig is an Assistant Professor of Legal Writing and an Adjunct Professor of Legal Drafting at the University of San Francisco School of Law. She earned her B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of California, Los Angeles and herJ.D., magna cum laude, from the University of San Francisco, where she was a Dean's Scholar and Managing Editor of the U.S.F. Law Review. Ms. Koenig's private practice focuses on public interest, intellectual property, and tribal law. ** Jonathan Stein is a trial lawyer in Santa Monica, California. Mr. Stein graduated Harvard College, magna cum laude, in 1979, and University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1983, where he was an editor of vols.
    [Show full text]
  • Shinnecock Indian Nation Climate Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan
    September 2019 Shinnecock Indian Nation Climate Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan September 2019 Peconic Estuary Climate Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan Prepared for Peconic Estuary Program Shinnecock Indian Nation Riverhead County Center 100 Church Street 300 Center Drive, Room 204N Southampton, New York 11968 Riverhead, New York 11901 Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 123 Tice Avenue, Suite 205 Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey 07677 The Nature Conservancy 250 Lawrence Hill Road Cold Spring Harbor, New York 11724 Fine Arts and Sciences LLC PO Box 398 East Hampton, New York 11937 Project Number: E71147-01.01 \\iris\woodcliff\Projects\SuffolkCountyPEP\Deliverables\Task 2c Final Report PEP and SIN\SIN\Shinnecock CRA 091919.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 The Shinnecock Indian Nation ....................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Regional Environment ....................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.1 Shinnecock Bay..................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Peconic Bay ............................................................................................................................................ 8 1.2.3 Regional Land Uses
    [Show full text]
  • 84-13 Opposition
    Case 2:18-cv-03648-SJF-SIL Document 84-13 Filed 11/18/19 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 1702 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------x DAVID T. SILVA, GERROD T. SMITH, and JONATHAN K. SMITH, Members of the Shinnecock Indian Nation, Plaintiffs, Case No.: 18-cv-3648 (SJF) (SIL) - against - PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO BRIAN FARRISH, STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION JAMIE GREENWOOD, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVAN LACZI, BASIL SEGGOS, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, and SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------x Scott M. Moore, Esq. MOORE INTERNATIONAL LAW PLLC 45 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10111 (212) 332-3474 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case 2:18-cv-03648-SJF-SIL Document 84-13 Filed 11/18/19 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 1703 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities ...................................................................................................... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT....................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................2 STANDARD OF REVIEW ...........................................................................................2 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................2 A. The State Defendants are not entitled to sovereign immunity
    [Show full text]
  • Indians, Tribes, and (Federal) Jurisdiction
    Indians, Tribes, and (Federal) Jurisdiction William Wood* I. INTRODUCTION Land, and controlling what happens on it and the revenues from it, has always been the focal point of relations between Indigenous peoples and non-Natives in North America.1 Today, as many Indian tribes re- build their land bases after centuries of dispossession, with the result that state and local governments generally lose jurisdiction over the land, the politics around tribal land (re)acquisitions2 are among the most conten- tious in Indian-white relations and federal Indian policy. Conflicts over tribal land reacquisitions exist throughout the United States, from New England across the Great Lakes and Great Plains regions to California, and in the suburbs of some of America’s largest cities and the capital cit- ies of several states.3 And though the overwhelming majority of tribal * Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School; Visiting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. I thank Gregory Ablavsky, Kirsten Carlson, Carole Goldberg, Matthew Fletcher, Angela Riley, and Addie Rolnick for their comments on earlier drafts, and Lilit Arabyan, Rosio Flores, and Tamara Honrado for their research assistance. I also thank the librarians at Southwestern Law School, particularly David McFadden, and UCLA School of Law, as well as Lau- ren Benton, Drea Douglas, Heather McMillan-Nakai, and Helen Rountree, for their help locating and providing sources. And I thank Andrew Kershen, Erica McCabe, and the other editors and staff members of the Kansas Law Review for their work to improve this article. 1. This article uses the terms “Indigenous,” “Indian,” and “Native,” and “peoples,” “nations,” and “tribes,” interchangeably, with acknowledgment that none of these words is from a language indigenous to what is now called North America that people indigenous to this continent use to de- scribe themselves.
    [Show full text]