|
May 21, 2020 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers AMICUS BRIEF |
The Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Association, National Congress of American Indians Fund, Inter-Tribal Association of Arizona, Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes, United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Association on American Indian Affairs, and 28 federally recognized Indian Tribes (collectively “Amici Curiae”) submit this Amici Curiae brief in support of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Yankton Sioux Tribe, and Oglala Sioux Tribe. Amici Curiae share an interest in maintaining the federal government’s fiduciary duty to protect the health and welfare of Indian Tribal Nations, including the natural resources necessary to sustain them. Amici Curiae offer critical context regarding the grave consequences of disregarding Tribal treaty rights and the necessary role courts play in the accountability of the federal government to Indian Tribal Nations. |
|
May 13, 2020 Texas, et al., Petitioners, AMICUS BRIEF |
Amici are federally recognized Tribal Nations, local and regional Tribal organizations, and national Tribal organizations and all either operate health care facilities and provide direct health care services to their citizens and other beneficiaries, or they advocate on health issues affecting American Indian and Alaska Native people, or both. When Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), it enacted along with it several provisions relating specifically to the Indian health system. In particular, Section 10221 amended and modernized the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). These Indian provisions of the ACA have nothing to do with health insurance or the individual mandate deemed unconstitutional by the District Court. Nevertheless, because the District Court held the individual mandate inseverable from the entire Act, its sweeping decision extended to them. The Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court’s severability ruling, but agreed that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. If this Court likewise agrees, the amici have a vital and urgent interest in ensuring that a proper severability analysis is applied to sustain the separate and severable Indian-specific provisions. |
|
May 11, 2020 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe v. Bernhardt, No. CV 18-2242 (D.D.C. May 11, 2020). AMICUS BRIEF |
Amicus Curiae is the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, which represents 30 federally recognized Tribal Nations from the Northeastern Woodlands to the Everglades and across the Gulf of Mexico. In March of 2020, DOI supplanted its longstanding legal framework for taking land into trust for Tribal Nations with a new legal standard and procedure that will significantly increase Tribal Nations’ burdens in the lawful restoration of our homelands. DOI’s abrupt change in policy was made without notice to Tribal Nations and failed to include any tribal consultation. Holding DOI and other federal agencies accountable for their Tribal consultation duties is a priority for USET SPF. Through this analysis, USET SPF believes its brief will aid the Court in determining the relevance of DOI’s withdrawal of its 2014 M-Opinion and issuance of new guidance as well as the relevance of cases upholding the reasoning in the 2014 M-Opinion, including Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon v. Jewell. |
|
August 23, 2019 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 1:16-cv-01534-JEB (D.D.C. 2016) AMICUS BRIEF |
Amici are individual federally recognized Indian Tribal Nations from across Indian Country, along with leading national and regional Indian organizations. These Tribal Nations and Tribal amici organizations share an interest requiring a meaningful role for Tribal consultation in the federal agency decision making process. They highlight the fact that the U.S. Army Corps failed to consider the their views and urge the court to grant the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, et al., Motion for Summary Judgment and asks that the voices of Indian Tribal Nations be heard in the manner that federal law and principles of Tribal sovereignty require. |
|
April 18, 2019 Texas v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas AMICUS BRIEF – October 25AMICUS BRIEF – April 18 |
|
|
April 1, 2019 STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF WISCONSIN; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF FLORIDA; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF AMICUS BRIEFLetter from HSDW to Department of Justice in response to their change in position 4/1/2019 |
The 483 federally recognized Tribal Nations across the country who are amici or members of amici Tribal organizations are directly affected by the District Court’s decision to invalidate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or Act) in its entirety – including Section 10221 and other Indian-specific health care provisions incorporated into the Act. While Section 10221 only represents a single page of the ACA, it incorporates by reference S. 1790, a 274-page bill that amended and permanently authorized the IHCIA. Amici believe the District Court erred in its severability analysis, and believe the IHCIA and other Indian-specific provisions of the ACA must be preserved, regardless of how this Court views the constitutionality of the individual mandate. |
|
March 15, 2019 UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN CASE DOCUMENT
|
|
|
July 2, 2018 BLACKFEET TRIBE, COUSHATTA TRIBE OF LOUISIANA, FORT BELKNAP INDIAN COMMUNITY, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE, and UNITED SOUTH AND EASTERN TRIBES, INC., AMICUS BRIEF |
Petitioners challenge the FCC’s legal authority to promulgate regulations implementing the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”) and categorically excluding itself from its statutory obligation to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. |
|
May 25, 2018 Chad Everet BRACKEEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ryan ZINKE, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants., No. 4:17-868-O (N.D.Tex.) AMICUS BRIEF |
Amici are individual federally recognized Indian Tribal Nations from across Indian Country, along with leading national and regional Indian organizations. The vital protections provided by the Indian Child Welfare Act to Indian children, Indian families, and Indian Tribal Nations is of significant important to amici and their members. The challenge to ICWA presented by Plaintiffs seek to diminish ICWA’s protections and undermine the unique trust responsibilities the United States owes to Indian children and Tribal Nations. |
|
March 26, 2018 Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Wilkes, 2018 WL 1512319 (U.S.) AMICUS BRIEF |
State courts around the country have recognized that Tribal sovereign immunity, like the immunity of other sovereigns, extends to tort claims to the extent not waived or abrogated. Yet, even as Tribal Nations have waived immunity in Tribal court or otherwise provided for redress of such claims in a manner similar to other governments, some state courts have ignored that fact and complained that the lack of a state court remedy against Tribal governments renders the doctrine of sovereign immunity intolerable and unjust when invoked by Tribal Nations. The extent of this phenomenon suggests that, were this Court to abstain from correcting the Alabama Supreme Court’s erroneous ruling, other state courts would view that abstention as permission to draw their own narrow boundaries around tribal sovereign immunity in contravention of this Court’s precedents and Congress’ policy judgments. |
|
January 29, 2018 Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, 2018 WL 637359 (U.S.) AMICUS BRIEF |
If the United States, instead of the Tribal Nation, had purchased the fee land in question, this lawsuit presumably would have been dismissed by Washington courts. Over the past 60 years,3 this Court has repeatedly stated that federal sovereign immunity cannot be evaded by sleights of hand such as naming a governmental official, or bringing an in rem action against government property. E.g., Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 280-86 (1983) (dismissing North Dakota’s suit seeking to quiet title to federal lands that supposedly passed into state ownership pursuant to the equal footing doctrine); Malone, 369 U.S. at 643-45 (holding that sovereign immunity barred an action for ejectment against a U.S. Forest Service official, where private plaintiffs claimed they *5 were the rightful owners of land purchased by the United States). If the government is the real party in interest, the suit is barred regardless of the named defendant, unless a clear and unequivocal waiver has been granted.4 Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 687-88 (1949). |
|
September 25, 2017 PENOBSCOT NATION; United States, on its own behalf, and for the benefit of the Penobscot Nation, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Janet T. MILLS, Attorney General for the State of Maine; Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; Joel T. Wilkinson, Colonel for the Maine Warden Service; State of Maine; Town of Howland; True Textiles, Inc.; Guilford-Sangerville Sanitary District; City of Brewer; Town of, 2017 WL 4390111 (C.A.1) AMICUS BRIEF |
Amici agree with Petitioners, the Penobscot Nation (“Nation”) and the United States, that the Panel’s decision conflicts with Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U.S. 78 (1918), and Maine v. Johnson, 498 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2007). In addition, and of great concern to Amici, the Panel applied the incorrect legal standard to interpret the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (“MICSA”),1 including provisions incorporating the Maine Implementing Act2 (together, “Settlement Acts”). The Panel ignored general rules of statutory construction, and the particular rules for construing statutes enacted for the benefit of Indians. The Panel also ignored the longstanding Supreme Court and First Circuit rule that Congress must act clearly when it divests a Tribal Nation of its existing rights, and that all rights not clearly abrogated remain with the Tribal Nation. |
|
September 7, 2017 THE MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Lewis TEIN, P.L., Guy Lewis, and Michael Tein, Appellees., 2017 WL 4891289 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.) AMICUS BRIEF |
The Court’s decision upholding tribal sovereign immunity was correctly reached and in line with well-established law. A decision by the Court to now certify appellees’ question as an issue of great public importance warranting Florida Supreme Court review would breathe life into appellees’ wrongful attempt to narrow Tribal sovereign immunity. It would imply that case law regarding Tribal sovereign immunity in this context is anything less than steadfast and clear. Amici therefore have a strong interest in urging this Court not to certify the question to the Florida Supreme Court. |
|
February 21, 2017 Standing Rock Sioux et al. v USACE and DAPL, No. 16-cv-1534 (D.D.C.) AMICUS BRIEFDAPL Amicus Workgroup – NCAI, Tribes, Organizations Filed February 21, 2017 |
The Amici Tribal Nations have suffered the vast loss of lands and other fundamental resources and rights reserved to them under law, often by solemn treaty obligation, when the federal government determined it was advantageous to disavow its prior commitments to them. Some of the most grievous losses are not remnants of a distant past, but as in the case of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other Sioux nations, took place within living memory. The loss of Tribal lands, communities, and indeed entire ways of life due to the infrastructure projects, development, and rampant pollution of the twentieth century is an all-too-familiar tale for Indian peoples, and examples of such dispossession span the breadth of the country. |
|
January 23, 2017 THE MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Lewis TEIN, P.L., Guy Lewis and Michael Tein, Appellees., 2017 WL 3835485 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.) AMICUS BRIEFUSET Sovereign Immunity Amicus (Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida) January 23, 2017 |
In the modern era, Tribal sovereign immunity has taken on new significance for Indian Tribal Nations across the United States. As Indian Tribal economies have had an increasingly significant impact on the surrounding communities and economies, Tribal Nations have developed advanced court systems, adopted government tort claims acts similar to federal and state governments, and entered into countless contracts and agreements where they have carefully negotiated limited waivers of sovereign immunity for a myriad of purposes and as part of a bargained-for exchange. All of these developments are based on established doctrines regarding the nature of Tribal sovereign immunity found in federal law and set forth in this memorandum. The decision below tears at the fabric of these doctrines in a manner that destabilizes this area of law and would undermine well-recognized Tribal authority to define the terms of sovereign immunity waivers. |
|
December 21, 2016 Lewis v. Clarke, 2016 WL 7644925 (U.S.) AMICUS BRIEF |
Amici Tribal Nations and USET member Tribal Nations (collectively “Amici Tribal Nations”) have a strong interest in this case because of its potential impact on the scope of immunity for Tribal officials and employees and the range of core sovereign interests that immunity protects.4 But Amici Tribal Nations’ interest in this case also extends to its potential impact on a wide array of negotiated intergovernmental agreements and Tribal laws that govern Amici Tribal Nations’ working relationships with their sister governments and commitments to individual state and Tribal citizens, and which specify tort remedies and immunity waivers as negotiated *3 between the sovereigns and as appropriate to the specific parties and their situations. These agreements include Tribal-State gaming compacts entered into under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. (IGRA), through which Congress has preempted the field of Indian gaming. Under the IGRA, Tribal Nations and States that wish to negotiate remedies for tort claims related to Class III gaming must use the Tribal-State compact process. |
|
May 11, 2016 Redding Rancheria v Burwell, AMICUS BRIEFAmicus Brief in support of Redding Rancheria Civ. No. 14-2035 May 11, 2016 |
Amici and their member Tribal Nations have a strong interest in this litigation because the IHS has taken the position in its briefs that Section 2901(b) of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 25 U.S.C. § 1623(b), overrides the IHS’s longstanding policy exempting Tribal self-insurance plans from its “payer of last resort” rule for purposes of CHS and CHEF. This is the first time the IHS has taken such a position in the six years since that provision was enacted by Congress. |
|
April 28, 2016 Shinnecock Indian Nation v. State of New York, 2016 WL 1715308 (U.S.) AMICUS BRIEFAmicus Brief in support of Shinnecock Indian Nation No. 15-1215 April 28, 2016 |
We submit this brief to highlight the extent to which the remarkably troubling ruling below – conferring a large and amorphous “equitable” immunity, based on the “disruption” associated with the passage of time, for violations of federal statutes, treaties, and common law – (1) undermines responsible reservation governance initiative and interrupts a long history of good faith resolution of Indian claims in accordance with the United States’ duty of protection to Indian nations and Indian people, and (2) contravenes the considered judgments of the executive and legislative branches and of this Court. |
|
March 17, 2016 Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government v. N.L.R.B., 2016 WL 1069393 (U.S.) DAMICUS BRIEFUSET Participates in Little River Band of Ottawa Amicus Brief – March 17, 2016 |
Amici share a strong interest in this case because of the impact the Sixth Circuit’s ruling will have on their ability as governmental entities to regulate the presence and conduct of labor organizations on their Tribal lands, and to effectively manage the impacts of organized labor activity on their delivery of essential governmental services to Tribal citizens. As illustrated in this brief, many Tribal Nations including amici and USET member Tribal Nations have in place Tribal laws to govern public sector employment and protect governmental programs, services, and interests.3 The ruling below threatens the ability of Tribal Nations to adopt and enforce those laws. As such, this case implicates the self-government rights and sovereign interests of amici Tribal Nations and USET member Tribal Nations. |
|
March 17, 2016 Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort v. N.L.R.B., 2016 WL 1069013 (U.S.) AMICUS BRIEF |
Amici share a strong interest in this case because of the impact the Sixth Circuit’s ruling will have on their ability as governmental entities to regulate the presence and conduct of labor organizations on their Tribal lands, and to effectively manage the impacts of organized labor activity on their delivery of essential governmental services to Tribal citizens. As illustrated in this brief, many Tribal Nations including amici and USET member Tribal Nations have in place Tribal laws to govern public sector employment and protect governmental programs, services, and interests.3 The ruling below threatens the ability of Tribal Nations to adopt and enforce those laws. As such, this case implicates the self-government rights and sovereign interests of amici Tribal Nations and USET member Tribal Nations. |
|
December 24, 2015 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE GRAND RONDE COMMUNITY OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant. Clark County, Washington, et al., Plaintiff-Appellants, v. Sally Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Intervenor-Appellee., 2015 WL 9433460 (C.A.D.C.) AMICUS BRIEF |
USET-member Tribal Nations retain only small remnants of their original homelands today. Since the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (“IRA”) was enacted, USET-member Tribal Nations have been able to purchase land and petition the Secretary of the Interior (“Secretary”) to place that land into trust status for a wide variety of purposes. The interpretation of the IRA is therefore of special *2 importance to USET and is an area of federal Indian law in which USET has developed particular expertise |
|
October 22, 2015 Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 2015 WL 6406720 (U.S.) AMICUS BRIEFNational Tribal Amicus Brief Dollar General Corporation v MBCI October 22, 2015 |
Amici share a strong interest in this case because of the sweeping impact its resolution could have on their ability (or the *2 ability of their member Tribal Nations) to exercise civil adjudicative jurisdiction over nonmembers on Tribal lands. Amici’s interest in maintaining such jurisdiction stems from their interests in Tribal self-government and the protection of their members and territories; in the maintenance and enforcement of civil law and order on Tribal lands; and in ensuring that justice and the protection of the law are extended to all persons on reservation lands. |
|
September 17, 2014 STATE OF ALABAMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PCI GAMING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2014 WL 4784160 (C.A.11) AMICUS BRIEFUSET Amicus Brief (State of AL vs PCI Gaming Authority) – Filed Sept 17, 2014 |
The State of Alabama (the “State”) seeks to collaterally attack the trust status of lands that have been held in trust by the United States for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (the “Tribe”) pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (the “IRA”) for over nine and up to 20 years. USET agrees with the Tribe that the claims made by the State cannot be raised in this case and in this forum, and were properly dismissed by the District Court. |
|
May 13, 2014 Harrison v PCI Gaming d/b/a Creek Entertainment, No. 1130168 (Supreme Ct. of Ala.) AMICUS BRIEFAmicus Brief FILED: Harrison Family v PCI Gaming May 13, 2014 |
While USET and NCAI take no position on the underlying merits of the dispute at issue in this case, their member Tribal Nations have a strong common interest in opposing Appellant Harrison’s attempt to collaterally attack the very existence of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians in an effort to overcome the doctrine of Tribal sovereign immunity from suit. |
|
November 6, 2013 THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE GRAND RONDE COMMUNITY OF OREGON, and Clark County, Washington, et al., Plaintiffs, v. S.M.R. JEWELL, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants, and COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE, Intervenor-Defendant. AMICUS BRIEF |
For the amici, the reacquisition and rebuilding of their homelands is of critical importance to achieving their goal of economic self-sufficiency as self-governing entities. The revenues generated from economic development enterprises on trust and reservation lands provide each Tribal Nation with the ability to strengthen its Tribal government, improve the quality of life of its citizens and provide capital for other economic development and investment opportunities. |
|
October 31, 2013 State of Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 2013 WL 5915052 (U.S.) (U.S.,2013) AMICUS BRIEFAmicus Brief MI v. Bay Mills Indian Community – October 31, 2013 |
2. Whether Tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a Tribal Nation from violating IGRA outside of Indian lands. |
|
March 27, 2013 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 2013 WL 1279467 (U.S. 2013) AMICUS BRIEF
Amicus Brief Filed in Supreme Court in ICWA Case – USET March 27, 2013 |
As federally recognized Tribal Nations and Indian or Tribal organizations, amici have extensive knowledge and experience with regard to the operation of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In particular, amici have first-hand knowledge of ICWA’s importance in protecting Indian children’s citizenship ties to their Tribal Nations. The realization and protection of these citizenship ties is critical both to Tribal self-governance and to the full exercise of the rights and responsibilities available to Indian children eligible for Tribal citizenship. Accordingly, amici have a strong interest in ensuring the proper and constitutional interpretation of ICWA as legislation protecting Tribal citizenship. |
|
October 5, 2012 Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Cmty. of Oregon v. Salazar, CIV.A. 11-284 RWR, 2012 WL 3757655 (D.D.C.), AMICUS BRIEF |
For the amici, the reacquisition and rebuilding of their homelands is of critical importance for achieving their goal of economic self-sufficiency as self-governing entities. The revenues generated from economic development enterprises on trust and reservation lands provide each Tribal Nation with the ability to strengthen its Tribal government, improve the quality of life of its members and provide capital for other economic development and investment opportunities. |
|
January 27, 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 293713 (U.S.) AMICUS BRIEF |
The 449 Tribal Nations across the nation who are amici or members of amici Tribal organizations represented on this brief are direct beneficiaries of several Indian-specific provisions included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act” or “ACA”)2 that have a purpose and genesis separate and distinct from the minimum coverage provision that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional but severable from remaining provisions of the Act.3 The Indian-specific provisions of the ACA are legally separable from the remainder of the Act, because they solely relate to the Federal responsibility to provide health care to Indian Tribal Nations and their members, and are of critical importance to the delivery of health care services to Indian Tribal Nations and their citizens throughout the country. |
|
April 7, 2011 STATE OF FLORIDA, By and Through Attorney General Pam Bondi, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al, Defendants-Appellants., 2011 WL 1461594 (C.A.11) AMICUS BRIEF |
The close to 350 Tribal Nations across the nation who are amici or members of amici Tribal organizations represented on this brief are directly affected by the district court’s decision to invalidate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Acf or “ACA”) in its entirety, including several Indian-specific provisions that have a separate purpose and genesis from the individual mandate declared unconstitutional by the court. These Indian-specific provisions are legally separable from the remainder of the Act, are related solely to the Federal responsibility to provide health care to Indian Tribal Nations and their members, and are of critical importance to the delivery of health care services to Indian Tribal Nations and their citizens throughout the country. If this Court reaches the question of severability, the amici have a strong interest in ensuring that the analysis includes a thoughtful consideration of the severability rules as applied to these separate and separable Indian-specific provisions of the Act. |
