Significant Decisions
Manchester Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 363 F. Supp. 1283 (N.D. Cal.
1973).
Set standards for proper investment practices required of Secretary of the Interior when
managing Indian trust monies.
Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973), on remand, 48 Cal. App. 3d 454, 121 Cal. Rptr.
906 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 907 (1976).
Jurisdictional case resulting in establishment of reservation boundary line, which doubled
the size of the reservation.
Captain Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Helix Irrigation Dist., 514 F.2d 465 (9th
Cir. 1975), cert. denied, U.S. 874 (1975).
Interpreted narrowly a federal statute conferring jurisdiction in state over certain matters
relating to Indians and Indian reservations.
People v. LeBlanc 399 Mich. 31,248 N.W.2d 199 (1976).
Successful defense in Michigan Supreme Court to prosecution for violation of State’s
fishing laws prohibiting the use of gillnets. Established treaty right to fish commercially
with gillnets in Lake Superior.
United States v. Michigan, 471 F. Supp. 192 (W.D. Mich. 1979), on remand, 623 F.2d
488 (6th Cir. 1981), aff’d, 653 F.2d 277 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 (1981).
Treaty fishing case concerning Chippewas' off-reservation treaty fishing rights in
approximately half of Lakes Superior and Michigan and one-fifth of Lake Huron. District
Court ruled in favor of the tribes; the United States Court of Appeals affirmed and the
Supreme Court declined to grant the State’s request to hear the case, thereby leaving the
treaty rights in tact.
Related cases:
a.)
United States v. Michigan, 505 F. Supp.467 (W.D. Mich.1980).
Request for stay of decision denied. Court held that treaty fishermen fish as a matter of right.
Non-Indian fishers fish as a matter of privilege.
b.)
United States v. Michigan, 89 F.R.D. 307 (W.D. Mich.1980).
District Court denied intervention petition by a conservation club and sport fishing association.
c.)
United States v. Michigan, 508 F. Supp.480 (W.D. Mich. 1980).
District Court issued a preliminary injunction to halt state court from implementing its order
finding treaty fishermen in contempt of court for willfully violating an ex parte restraining order
based on Indian’s presence in boat with box of gill nets, but without any fish.
d.)
United States v. Michigan, 623 F.2d 488, ( 6th Cir.1980).
Court of Appeals remanded to district court for consideration of preemptive effect of new,
comprehensive federal regulations governing Indian treaty fishing in Great Lakes.
e.)
United States v. Michigan, 653 F. 2d 277 ( 6th Cir. 1981).
Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s opinion upholding treaty rights to fish in much of
Michigan’s Great Lakes’ waters.
f.)
United States v. Michigan, 520 F. Supp. 207 (W.D. Mich. 1981).
District Court held that unless state showed necessity, irreparable harm and absence of effective
Indian tribal self-regulation, state could not regulate gill net fishing by Indians in Great Lakes and, if
state met those criteria, any regulations must be a necessary conservation measure, must be the
least restrictive alternative method available for preserving fisheries in Great Lakes from irreparable
harm and must not discriminatorily harm Indian fishing or favor other classes of fisherman.
g.)
United States v. Michigan, 712 F.2d 242 ( 6th Cir.1983).
Court of Appeals held that state court contempt orders violated supremacy clause as interfering with
pending federal court resolution of fishing rights dispute.
h.)
United States v. Michigan, 12 ILR 3079 (W.D. Mich. 1985).
District Court adopted the allocation plan contained in March 28, 1985 agreement that established
management zones for treaty and non-treaty fishers.
United States v. Montana 686 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1982).
Appeal of district court judgment entered upon remand by United States Supreme Court in
the Big Horn Riverbed decision. On behalf of the Crow Tribe, successfully argued that
district judge after remand exceeded the scope of the decisions of the Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court.
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Michigan, 784 F. Supp.418 (W.D. Mich.1989).
Successful litigation initiated to define reservation boundary, which turned on the meaning
of the language in the 1854 treaty establishing the reservation.
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin, 770 F.
Supp. 480 (W.D. Wisc.1990), appeal dism’d, 957 F.2d. 515 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506
U.S. 829 (1992).
Bad faith lawsuit under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which successfully forced the
state to negotiate about a wide range of games for inclusion in a tribal/state compact. Suit
resulted in gaming compacts for 11 tribes in Wisconsin.
Oregon v. Norton, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (D. Or. 2003).
Successfully defeated a challenge by the State of Oregon to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s
decision
that certain trust lands of an Oregon tribe were eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act
as restored lands to a restored tribe. The tribe subsequently constructed and operates a $70 million
gaming facility on those lands.
Dewberry v. Kulongoski, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D. Or. 2005).
Successfully defended against a challenge raised by a local citizens group regarding the Governor’s
authority to enter into a compact amendment with the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and
Siuslaw Indians.
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. United States, 576 F. Supp. 2d 838 (W.D. Mich.
2008).
Successfully overturned a decision by the U.S. Department of the Interior that a certain parcel of trust
land
was not eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. District Court held the lands were
contiguous to the tribe’s reservation and, therefore, were eligible for gaming. The tribe had already
constructed a $41 million gaming facility on the land before the Interior Department had issued its
adverse
ruling. The United States declined to appeal the District Court’s decision.
Significant Matters:
Class III Gaming Compacts in Michigan
Successfully negotiated class III gaming compacts for seven Indian tribes in Michigan in
1993, pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The compacts authorize the play of a
full range of all games played in Nevada, and are the most liberal compacts in any state in
the country.
Class III Gaming Compacts in Wisconsin
As the result of the Lac du Flambeau litigation referred to above, which authorized casino
style gaming, including electronic gaming machines for the first time in Wisconsin,
negotiated compacts for two tribes in 1991 and 1992 with the State of Wisconsin.
Gaming Dispute in Wisconsin
Successfully negotiated acrimonious dispute among Indian tribe, an Indian community
school and a casino manager regarding the management and sharing of revenues from a
large, urban casino in the city of Milwaukee. The resolution of the dispute consumed
approximately 15 months (1995-1996) and required recruitment and selection of a mediator
to assist in the negotiations.
Class III Gaming Compact in Washington
In lengthy dispute between the State of Washington and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian
Reservation, successfully represented the Colville Tribes in a civil forfeiture suit brought by the United
States against all of the class III electronic gaming machines used by the Tribes at three casino venues.
Thereafter, successfully negotiated on behalf of the Tribes a class III gaming compact with the State.
Tax Agreement
Lead counsel in two years of negotiations with the State of Michigan over state taxation issues. The
negotiations led to an omnibus tax agreement between the State and most of the federally recognized
tribes in Michigan regarding what taxes would be collected by the tribes, what portion of the tax
collections
would remain with the tribes and what portion belonged to the State. In addition, the tribes received
generous allotments of tax-free cigarettes, and motor fuels, as well as exemptions for the tribes and tribal
members from many state taxes.
Consent Decree
In 2007, completed successful negotiations with the State of Michigan over the rights of five tribes, party
to
the Treaty of 1836, to exercise their hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering rights under that Treaty in
inland areas of the State. The negotiations concluded with the five tribes, the State and the United States
entering into a Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, which
confirmed the tribes’ inland, usufructuary treaty rights