Gonzalez v. State of Arizona

Gonzalez v. State of Arizona, No. 08-17094

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/enbanc/08-17094pfr.pdf

Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by the State of Arizona and Arizona Secretary of State:

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 624 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 2011 WL 1651242 (9th Cir. April 27, 2011)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: April 27, 2011

Status: Calendared June 21, 2011 at 2:00 p.m., Pasadena, California.

Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available

Subject Matter: Appeal by Arizona residents and Indian tribes in consolidated actions challenging validity of state Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and proof of identification to vote in person at polls.

Amicus Brief in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder

The Indian Legal Clinic and Sacks Tierney filed an amici brief in the above-reference case regarding the constitutionality of the Section 5 preclearance requirements. Indian Legal Clinic Student Attorney Nikki Borchardt (3L), Adjunct Professor and ASU Alum Judy Dworkin and Professor Patty Ferguson Bohnee prepared the brief.

Brief of the Navajo Nation, Anthony Wounded Head, et al. Amici are concerned that if the Court declares that the reauthorization of Section 5 is unconstitutional, American Indian voting rights will be significantly impacted and result in a reversal of the strides made in recent years to ensure greater Indian voter participation. This would negatively impact many American Indian voters who only recently secured the right to vote, continue to face discrimination in voting, and who cannot shoulder the financial burden to bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA.

Carcieri v. Salazar

Court rules for state in American Indian land case
The Associated Press
Tuesday, February 24, 2009; 10:12 AM

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has limited the federal government’s authority to hold land in trust for Indian tribes, a victory for states seeking to impose local laws and control over development on Indian lands.The court’s ruling Tuesday applies to tribes recognized by the federal government after the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.The U.S. government argued that the law allows it to take land into trust for tribes regardless of when they were recognized, but Justice Clarence Thomas said in his majority opinion that the law “unambiguously refers to those tribes that were under the federal jurisdiction” when it was enacted.The ruling comes in a case involving the Narragansett Indian Tribe in Rhode Island and a 31-acre tract of land.The case is Carcieri v. Salazar, 07-526.

New 9th Circuit opinion

The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Reinhardt and a dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski, held that a Blackfeet descendant was not an Indian for the purposes of criminal prosecution under the Major Crimes Act. The Court found that Cruz, a Blakfeet and a Canadian Blood Indian, did not meet the second prong of its test set forth in U.S. v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). The four factors under the second prong include: 1) tribal enrollmnent; 2) government recognition through receipt of benefits reserved to Indians; 3) enjoyment of benefits due to tribal affiliation; and 4) social recognition. Although Cruz is a descendant of a Blackfeet, Cruz is not an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe and did not take advantage of any benefits reserved for Indians. Although Cruz lived on the reservation for a short time as a child, attended public school on the reservation and worked on the reservation, the Court did not find that these facts could satisfy any of the four factors under Bruce’s second prong.

The decision can be found at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/02/10/0730384.pdf.

NARF Case Updates

***New content was posted in the Supreme Court Indian Law Bulletins on 10/30/08:***

* U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin – find it at:http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2008-2009update.htm

On 10/30/08, petitions for writ of certiorari were filed in two cases: Bodkin v. Cook Inlet Region, Inc., which deals with age discrimination and shareholder distributions and Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne which deals with whether an environmental impact statement was necessary in assessing impact of proposed Indian casino site on traffic.

* News Bulletin – find it at:http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.htm

David SeldenNational Indian Law Library1522 BroadwayBoulder, CO 80302 dselden@narf.org

Carcieri v. Kempthorne

Carcieri v. Kempthorne

Issue: Whether the Narrangansett Tribe may receive benefits under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 if the Tribe was not federally recognized on the date of enactment, and whether the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act foreclosed the Tribe’s right to exercise sovereignty over land in the state.
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Carcieri_v._Kempthorne

With Argument Day Approaching, Supreme Court Stalemate Continues
Legal Times
Tony Mauro10-22-2008

Less than two weeks before the case Carcieri v. Kempthorne comes before the Supreme Court, lawyers Theodore Olson and Joseph Larisa Jr. are still at an impasse over which one of them will argue the case for the plaintiffs.

Larisa has the backing of the town council of Charlestown, R.I. to argue in the case as he has in courts below, but Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri and Attorney General Patrick Lynch want Olson, the former solicitor general and now partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, to appear before the justices Nov. 3. The case is a dispute over an Indian land claim in Charlestown.

On Oct. 15, Olson filed a standard argument form with the Supreme Court clerk’s office stating he would be the one to argue. But the next day Larisa filed an argument form with his own name on it. Since the Court has already denied motions for divided argument, the clerk was faced with the dilemma of two lawyers claiming they will argue at the same time for the same party, when only one lawyer can do so.

On Monday Denise McNerney, the merits cases clerk for the Court, sent the two an identical letter telling them sternly that “The decision as to which attorney will argue on behalf of the petitioners in this case is now to be made amongst the parties.” She gave Olson and Larisa until noon on Oct. 30 to tell her who will be arguing.

Larisa, who wants the choice made by a coin toss, said Tuesday afternoon that the governor has once again refused to decide it that way. “They have not suggested any other option other than ‘Ted wins,'” said Larisa this afternoon. “Less than 13 days to go until oral argument and we cannot agree on a simple coin toss. It is the town’s position that the AG and governor are now affirmatively hurting preparation for oral argument.” Olson could not be reached for comment.

NARF: Tribal Supreme Court Project Update

This information was provided by the Native American Rights Fund. Visit their website for more information. http://www.narf.org/

New Supreme Court Term May Prove to be Another Difficult Period for Indian Country

WASHINGTON D.C.-The U.S. Supreme Court held its opening conference on September 29, 2008 and, as expected, granted review in two Indian law cases–United States v. Navajo Nation and State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs–both of which involve lower court decisions favorable to Indian country. First, in United States v. Navajo Nation, the Court will review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upholding the United States’ trust responsibility to the Navajo Nation. This case is part of the on-going litigation between the Navajo Nation and the United States involving disputes surrounding the negotiation of royalty rate adjustments for coal leases entered into between the Navajo Nation and the Peabody Coal Company.

Second, in State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Court will review a decision by the Supreme Court of Hawaii which held that the State of Hawaii should be enjoined from selling or transferring “ceded lands” held in trust until the claims of the native Hawaiians to the ceded lands have been resolved. The Supreme Court of Hawaii based its decision, in principal part, on the Apology Resolution adopted by Congress in 1993 which gives “rise to the State’s fiduciary duty to preserve the corpus of the public lands trust, specifically, the ceded lands, until such time as the unrelinquished claims of the native Hawaiians has been resolved.” In 2000, while in private practice, Chief Justice Roberts represented the State of Hawaii in Rice v. Cayetano, a case involving the status of native Hawaiians in which the Court held against Native interests. No doubt, the questions presented in this case are of keen interest to the Chief Justice.

At present, the Tribal Supreme Court Project remains extremely busy as it prepares for oral argument on November 3, 2008 in Carcieri v. Kempthorne (challenge to authority of the Secretary to take land in trust under section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act). The Project also is continuing its efforts to coordinate resources and develop strategy in support of a petition for cert involving the free exercise of Native religions under the protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Services (permit for ski resort to use recycled sewage waste-water to manufacture snow on the San Francisco Peaks — a sacred-site for many American Indian Tribes). As always, we are carefully monitoring cases of interest as they move through the lower courts.

Copies of briefs and other materials for each of the cases listed in the Tribal Supreme Court Project Update are available on the NARF website at http://www.narf.org/sct/index.html.

The Tribal Supreme Court Project is part of the Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative and is staffed by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the Native American Rights Fund (NARF). The Project was formed in 2001 in response to a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases that negatively affected tribal sovereignty. The purpose of the Project is to promote greater coordination and to improve strategy on litigation that may affect the rights of all Indian tribes.

We encourage Indian tribes and their attorneys to contact the Project in our effort to coordinate resources, develop strategy and prepare briefs, especially at the time of the petition for a writ of certiorari, prior to the Supreme Court accepting a case for review.

2 New US Supreme Court Cases

Today, the Supreme Court granted cert in two Indian law cases:

Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372

Petition for Cert: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/07-1372_pet.pdf
Hawaii Supreme Court Decision: Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Housing and Community Development Corp. of Hawaii, No. 25570 (Hawaii 2008) http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2008/25570.pdf

Question Presented in Petition for Cert:

“In the Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Congress acknowledged and apologized for the United States’ role in that overthrow. The question here is whether this symbolic resolution strips Hawaii of its sovereign authority to sell, exchange, or transfer 1.2 million acres of state land–29 percent of the total land area of the State and almost all the land owned by the State–unless and until it reaches a political settlement with native Hawaiians about the status of that land.”

U.S. v. Navajo Nation, No. 07-1410

Petition for Cert: http://www.narf.org/sct/usvnavajonation/petition_for_cert.pdf
Appellate Court Decision: Navajo Nation v. US, No. 06-5059 (Fed. Ct. 2007), http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/06-5059.pdf
Prior Supreme Court Decision: US v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003)

Questions Presented in Petition for Cert:

“The Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (IMLA), 25 U.S.C. 396a et- seq., and its implementing regulations authorize Indian Tribes, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to lease tribal lands for mining purposes. In a previous decision in this case, United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (Navajo), this Court held that the Secretary’s actions in connection with Indian mineral lease amendments containing increased royalty rates negotiated by the Navajo Nation did not breach a fiduciary duty found in IMLA or other relevant statutes or regulations. The court of appeals held on remand that the Secretary’s conduct breached duties linked to sources of law that had been briefed to this Court but not expressly discussed in Navajo. The questions presented are:
1. Whether the court of appeals’ holding that the United States breached fiduciary duties in connection with the Navajo coal lease amendments is foreclosed by Navajo.
2. If Navajo did not foreclose the question, whether the court of appeals properly held that the United States is liable as a mater of law to the Navajo Nation for up to $600 million for the Secretary’s actions in connection with his approval of amendments to an Indian mineral
lease based on several statutes that do not address royalty rates in tribal leases and common-law principles not embodied in a governing statute or regulation.”

Snowmaking OK’d at Snowbowl Resort

Snowmaking OK’d at Snowbowl resort
Aug. 8, 2008 11:00 AMAssociated Press

A federal appeals court has approved snowmaking using reclaimed wastewater at the Arizona Snowbowl ski resort north of Flagstaff.

The decision by a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is a blow for Indian tribes that had argued that the use of wastewater for snowmaking on peaks they consider sacred violates their religious freedom.

The full appeals court overturned a ruling by a three-judge appeals panel last year that held that using wastewater on the San Francisco Peaks violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Friday’s ruling says the tribes will still have full use of the mountain for their ceremonies and the snowmaking would not affect that.