Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
22-15543
|
Caremark LLC v. Choctaw Nation
District court correctly compelled Choctaw Nation's insurance claims to arbitration. |
Arbitration, Native American Affairs |
|
B. Bade | Jun. 11, 2024 |
23-250
|
Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act requires reimbursement for contract support costs incurred by tribes spending program income on healthcare programs under self-determination contracts. |
Native American Affairs |
|
J. Roberts | Jun. 7, 2024 |
23-35066
|
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. State Washington
A tribe's claim to fish based on the Treaty of Point Elliot's "usual and accustomed grounds" determination can be established using historical evidence, even if it conflicts with other evidence. |
Native American Affairs |
|
P. Curiam (9th Cir.) | May 15, 2024 |
22-35784
|
Lexington Insurance Co. v. Smith
Tribal Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the Tribe's claim against nonmember off-reservation insurance companies that participated in an insurance program tailored to and offered exclusively to tribes. |
Native American Affairs |
|
M. McKeown | Mar. 1, 2024 |
22-35140
|
Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation v. Wooten
The Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation's right to hunt on unoccupied lands under the 1868 Treaty of Fort Bridger was not conditioned on permanent residence on a reservation. |
Native American Affairs |
|
D. Nye | Oct. 19, 2023 |
21-35812
|
Amended Opinion: Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Lummi Nation
District Court correctly held that the Lummi Nation's usual and accustomed fishing grounds did not extend to the disputed |
Native American Affairs |
|
D. Collins | Oct. 4, 2023 |
21-35812
|
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Lummi Nation
District Court correctly held that the Lummi Nation's usual and accustomed fishing grounds did not extend to the disputed waters at issue. |
Native American Affairs |
|
D. Collins | Sep. 12, 2023 |
C096097
|
Rancheria v. Martin
State court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear tribe's dispute against defendants regarding land the tribe owns in fee simple, not held in trust by the federal government. |
Native American Affairs |
|
R. Robie | Jul. 13, 2023 |
D080288
|
Corrales v. California Gambling Control Commission
Court lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a party represented a California tribe when entering into a fee agreement because Bureau of Indian Affairs could not confer ostensible authority. |
Native American Affairs |
|
J. Irion | Jul. 12, 2023 |
21-1484
|
Arizona v. Navajo Nation
Despite implicitly reserving water rights for Navajo Tribe, 1868 Treaty did not establish judicially enforceable duty for the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe. |
Native American Affairs |
|
B. Kavanaugh | Jun. 23, 2023 |
21-376
|
Haaland v. Brackeen
Indian Child Welfare Act's Indian family placement preferences did not violate Congress's Article I powers because Congress's power to legislate regarding Indian affairs was plenary even in state custody proceedings. |
Native American Affairs |
|
A. Barrett | Jun. 16, 2023 |
21-35985
|
Upper Skagit v. Sauk-Suiattle
Language used in judicial opinion clearly and unambiguously established that district court did not intend to include the Skagit River in the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds. |
Native American Affairs |
|
S. Ikuta | May 2, 2023 |
21-35185
|
Amended Opinion: Metlakatla Indian Community v. Dunleavy
While not expressly stating the Metlakatla Native American's right to fish in certain Alaskan waters, the 1891 Act establishing their reservation required inference of such a right. |
Native American Affairs |
|
W. Fletcher | Feb. 1, 2023 |
21-15641
|
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Xavier Becerra, et al
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act requires Indian Health Services to cover "contract support costs" for activities funded by third-party revenues. |
Native American Affairs |
|
R. Paez | Nov. 22, 2022 |
21-35185
|
Metlakatla Indian Community v. Dunleavy
While not expressly stating the Metlakatla Native American's right to fish in certain Alaskan waters, the 1891 Act establishing their reservation required inference of such a right. |
Native American Affairs |
|
W. Fletcher | Sep. 9, 2022 |
21-429
|
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
The Federal Government and State of Oklahoma have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute a child neglect crime committed by a non-Indian against Indians in Indian country. |
Native American Affairs |
|
B. Kavanaugh | Jun. 30, 2022 |
20-7622
|
Denezpi v. U.S.
Successive prosecutions of offenses arising from separate sovereigns, even if prosecuted by a single sovereign, were not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. |
Native American Affairs |
|
A. Barrett | Jun. 13, 2022 |
19-36029
|
Oertwich v. Traditional Village of Togiak
As long as it involves a federally-recognized tribe, tribal sovereign immunity extends to the tribe's governmental and commercial activities undertaken on or off its reservation. |
Native American Affairs |
|
J. Rawlinson | Mar. 31, 2022 |
19-17088
|
Amended Opinion: Navajo Nation v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior
Indian tribe successfully identified specific treaty, statutory, and regulatory provisions that, taken together, anchored its breach of trust claim. |
Native American Affairs |
|
R. Gould | Feb. 18, 2022 |
20-35694
|
Grondal v. U.S.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs, as holder of legal title to Native American land held in trust by the United States for Native Americans, has standing to bring claims for trespass and ejectment against expired lessees on trust property. |
Native American Affairs |
|
C. Bea | Jan. 3, 2022 |
21-35230
|
Newtok Village v. Patrick
In order for federal courts to exercise jurisdiction in cases involving tribal disputes, the case, as pleaded, must involve federal law. |
Native American Affairs |
|
R. Tallman | Dec. 23, 2021 |
D077571
|
Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Flynt
Because Native American tribes are governmental entities, they have no standing to bring Unfair Competition Law claims. |
Native American Affairs |
|
T. Do | Nov. 1, 2021 |
E073926
|
Albrecht v. County of Riverside
Possessory interest tax imposed by the county and others on Native American tribes was not preempted by the Indian Reorganization Act. |
Native American Affairs |
|
R. Fields | Sep. 13, 2021 |
20-35346
|
Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. State of Washington
Absent treaty-tribe status, a Native American tribe cannot claim any rights under the Treaty of Point Elliot. |
Native American Affairs |
|
M. McKeown | Aug. 9, 2021 |
D078574
|
In re Charles W., Jr.
No 'reason to believe' children were of Native American ancestry because juvenile court held in prior dependency case that Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply and mother's counsel denied Indian heritage. |
Native American Affairs |
|
R. Huffman | Jul. 12, 2021 |
20-543
|
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation
Alaska Native Corporations are eligible to receive funding under CARES Act because they are 'recognized governing body of an Indian Tribe' as defined in Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. |
Native American Affairs |
|
S. Sotomayor | Jun. 28, 2021 |
18-35867
|
Deschutes River Alliance v. Portland General Electric
Clean Water Act did not abrogate Tribe's sovereign immunity; thus, district court should have dismissed suit for failure to join required party. |
Native American Affairs |
|
W. Fletcher | Jun. 24, 2021 |
19-16777
|
Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Bonta
Federally chartered tribal corporation was not 'Indian tribe or band' within meaning Tax Injunction Act's exception, and therefore could not invoke exception to avoid Tax Injunction Act's jurisdictional bar. |
Native American Affairs |
|
S. Thomas | Jun. 17, 2021 |
19-35807
|
Yakama Nation v. Klickitat County
Treaty between United States and Native American Tribe was naturally understood to include tract that partially overlaps with County within reservation. |
Native American Affairs |
|
M. Friedland | Jun. 14, 2021 |
19-1414
|
U.S. v. Cooley
Tribal police officers have authority to temporarily detain and search non-Indian persons traveling on public highways running through reservations for violations of state or federal law. |
Native American Affairs |
|
S. Breyer | Jun. 2, 2021 |