Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California

The Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California is, thus far, perhaps the most important Indian law decision in 2015. Rejecting its three-judge panel’s opinion, the Ninth Circuit, en banc, affirmed the importance of defending tribal sovereignty against invidious state actions. The court denounced California’s use of Carcieri to de-recognize the Big Lagoon Rancheria and rescind the trust status of its land, characterizing it as “a belated collateral attack” on the Tribe and an “end-run” around the APA

Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Board of Land and Natural Resources

Native Hawaiians and the scientific community have been pitted against each other in a decades-long culture war over the construction of observatories and telescopes on sacred landscapes. In Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, the Hawai’i Supreme Court handed a victory to Native Hawaiian culture and rights by halting the construction of a new telescope on Mauna Kea. The decision must be read cautiously, however, as it is firmly rooted in the strict application of procedural due process

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Justice Kagan’s gambling metaphors aside, Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community stands as a resolute affirmation of the Supreme Court’s refusal to qualify tribal sovereign immunity absent congressional action. Bay Mills reaffirms that as domestic dependent nations, tribes exercise inherent sovereign immunity, qualified only by the clear direction of Congress, not the Court. While the dissent vented its frustration with the precedent relied on by the majority, the Court reaffirmed that tribal sovereign immunity extends to all commercial activities occurring off Indian land

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Justice Kagan’s gambling metaphors aside, Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community stands as a resolute affirmation of the Supreme Court’s refusal to qualify tribal sovereign immunity absent congressional action. Bay Mills reaffirms that as domestic dependent nations, tribes exercise inherent sovereign immunity, qualified only by the clear direction of Congress, not the Court. While the dissent vented its frustration with the precedent relied on by the majority, the Court reaffirmed that tribal sovereign immunity extends to all commercial activities occurring off Indian land

Land Acquisition in the State of Alaska: Akiachak Native Community v. Salazar

Akiachak Native Community v. Salazar and the BIA’s repeal of the Alaska Exception are set to mark sweeping changes for Alaska Natives. Following the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s holding that the prohibition of trust acquisitions in Alaska violates the IRA, and before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could issue an opinion on the merits, the BIA repealed its rule prohibiting such acquisitions. The potential for drastic changes to the landscape of native communities and villages in Alaska is highly likely

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida stands as a declaration that tribal sovereignty preempts state taxation of tribal lands. Although the court framed its decision in the “‘deeply rooted’ historical ‘policy of leaving Indians free from state jurisdiction and control,” it held that Florida’s Rental and Utility Taxes imposed upon the Tribe were impermissible, based not on the rights and sovereignty of tribes, but on well-established principals of judicial deference to agency rule making