Alaska v. Babbitt
182 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 1999)
The United States issued a 500-acre grant to the State of Alaska in 1961 for use in the Parks Highway, the primary highway between Anchorage and Fairbanks. In 1969, the United States amended the grant to include only the land... {Continue reading}

Big Horn County Electric Cooperative v. Adams
219 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2000)
In a case that may have significant ramifications on the Ninth Circuit's application of Montana v. United States[1] to environmental regulation and natural resource management in Indian country, the court held that the Crow Tribe lacked regulatory authority to impose... {Continue reading}

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson
124 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 2319 (1998)
Four bands of Indians who operate simulcast wagering facilities on their tribal lands sued the Governor of California, the California Horse Racing Board, and the State of California (State), demanding that the defendants turn over to the bands the license... {Continue reading}

Cree v. Flores
157 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 1998)
This case involved an appeal from two consolidated cases. Defendants appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Yakama Indian Nation and individual Yakama Indians. The district court held that the treaty with the Yakamas exempted... {Continue reading}

Gros Ventre Tribe v. United States
469 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2006)
Plaintiffs Gros Ventre Tribe, the Fort Belknap Indian Community Council, and the Assiniboine Tribe (the Tribes) appealed the District Court of Montana's grant of summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction[1] to defendants the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the... {Continue reading}

Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe v. Ryan
415 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2005)
The Hoopa Valley India Tribe (Tribe) filed suit against the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to compel the agency to provide funding for the Tribe's proposed river and species restoration projects on the Trinity River in Northern California under the mandatory... {Continue reading}

Hopi Tribe v. Navajo Tribe
46 F.3d 908 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 337 (1995)
Under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act (Settlement Act), the Navajo Tribe must pay the fair market rental value of homesites they occupy. The homesites are located on land partitioned and allocated to the Hopi Tribe. In the early 1980s, the Deputy... {Continue reading}

In re Exxon Valdez: Alaska Native Class v. Exxon
104 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 1997)
A group of Alaska Natives filed a class action against Exxon Corporation (Exxon) as a result of the 1989 grounding of the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The Alaska Natives sued for loss of a subsistence way of... {Continue reading}

Johnson v. Gila River Indian Community
174 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1999)
In 1966, the Gila River Indian Community (Tribe) leased a portion of its reservation land to Lone Butte Industrial Development Corporation (Lone Butte). Lone Butte then subleased the property to Genstar Corporation, which built a rubber processing plant on the... {Continue reading}

Klamath Water Users Protective Association v. United States
189 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 1999)
The Ninth Circuit held that documents submitted by Klamath River Basin Indian Tribes (Tribes) to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as a constituent agency of the Department of the Interior (DOI) were not exempt from release under the Freedom... {Continue reading}

Masayesva ex rel. Hopi Indian Tribe v. Hale
118 F.3d 1371 (9th Cir. 1997)
The Ninth Circuit heard three appeals involving the long-running dispute between the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe over the ownership, control, and use of 1.8 million acres of Native American reservation land in northeastern Arizona and the neighboring portions of... {Continue reading}

Masayesva v. Zah
65 F.3d 1445 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1569 (1996)
In 1882, by Executive Order, the President of the United States set aside land in northeastern Arizona for the Hopi Tribe. In 1934, Congress established a Navajo reservation in the same area but it did not take away any Hopi... {Continue reading}

Montana v. Gilham
133 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1998)
The Ninth Circuit held that a state's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment bars an unconsented tort action filed by an individual in tribal court. Montana has such immunity and did not waive it in its state constitution. In 1986,... {Continue reading}

Montana v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
137 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 1998)
In 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation (Tribes) "treatment as state" (TAS) status under the Clean Water Act (CWA),[2] authorizing the Tribes to set water quality standards for all... {Continue reading}

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Federal Aviation Administration
161 F.3d 569 (9th Cir. 1998)
In early 1997, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began to design the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) East Arrival Enhancement Project (AEP). The purpose of the project is to reduce air traffic into LAX from the east and to increase... {Continue reading}

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Nation
234 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000)
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe initiated the first action, seeking declaratory judgment and clarification of the phrase "to the present environs of Seattle," regarding the extent of the Lummi Indian Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds. In a previous case, the... {Continue reading}

Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe
141 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1998)
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Muckleshoot) and other south Puget Sound Indian Tribes disputed an interpretation of decrees adjudicating their treaty fishing rights with respect to the "usual and accustomed fishing places" of the Lummi and Swinomish tribes. Muckleshoot and other... {Continue reading}

Native Village of Quinhagak v. United States
307 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2002)
Alaskan native villages (Quinhagak plaintiffs) sued Alaska and the United States to enforce their fishing rights under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).[1] Finding that the Quinhagak plaintiffs prevailed on the merits, the district court awarded attorney fees... {Continue reading}

Ohana v. United States
76 F.3d 280 (9th Cir. 1996)
A native Hawaiian family asserted its right to exclusively use and occupy the `Ai'opio fish trap located within the Kaloko-HonokohauNationalHistoricPark. The district court granted summary judgment for the United States. The Ninth Circuit wrote this opinion affirming the district court... {Continue reading}

Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo Nation
75 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 1996)
The Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act of 1974 (Act) provides that Navajo and Hopi Tribes will maintain joint ownership of all minerals within or underlying joint-use lands. This is true even if the lands have been partitioned pursuant to the Act. The... {Continue reading}

San Carlos Apache Tribe v. U. S.
417 F.3d 1091(9th Cir. 2005)
The San Carlos Apache Tribe (Tribe) appealed a grant of summary judgment to the United States in a suit the Tribe brought under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)[1] inter alia, to enjoin the release of water from the San Carlos... {Continue reading}

United States ex rel. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Byrne
279 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2002)
The Ninth Circuit considered whether the district court had jurisdiction over a quiet title claim and ejection action, and whether the district court properly concluded that disputed property was in the state of California. The court reversed on both issues.... {Continue reading}

United States v. Braren
338 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2003)
The State of Oregon and the Brarens, the landowners, appealed the district court's declaration of tribal water rights involved in an Oregon state adjudication. Oregon argued that the claims were not ripe and that the district court should have abstained... {Continue reading}

United States v. Houser
130 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 1997)
A non-Indian convicted of second-degree murder of an Indian on an Indian reservation challenged his conviction based on alleged criminal procedure violations of the federal district court. He also brought a post-Lopez challenge to congressional power under the Indian commerce... {Continue reading}

United States v. Idaho
210 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2000)
The United States, in its own capacity and as trustee for the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe, brought this suit against the State of Idaho seeking to quiet title to submerged lands under Coeur d'Alene Lake and the St. Joe River... {Continue reading}

United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe
235 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000)
In the second supplemental proceeding regarding these three disputed areas, the Ninth Circuit held that the Lummi Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds included Admiralty Inlet, but did not include the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the mouth of... {Continue reading}

United States v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
235 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 2000)
In the third supplemental proceeding, the Ninth Circuit held that Judge Boldt's language, "secondarily in the waters of Puget Sound," meant that the Muckleshoot Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds did not include any areas outside of Elliot Bay.[1] After... {Continue reading}

United States v. Washington
235 F.3d 438 (9th Cir. 2000)
In a supplemental proceeding to Judge Boldt's opinion in United States v. Washington (Boldt Decision),[1] as part of the ongoing litigation over Indian fishing rights in the Pacific Northwest, the Ninth Circuit held that fish caught by the Chehalis Indian... {Continue reading}

United States v. Washington
135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1998), amended by 157 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1376 (1999)
This case involved a dispute between the State of Washington (the State), Washington Indian Tribes (the Tribes), private landowners (the Owners), and private shellfish growers (the Growers) over the extent of Indian treaty rights as they apply to shellfish harvest... {Continue reading}

Wilson v. Marchington
127 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1997)
A member of the Blackfeet Indian Tribe brought this action in the District of Montana for recognition and registration of a judgment entered in tribal court as a result of a personal injury action against a nonmember. The district court... {Continue reading}

Youpee v. Babbitt
67 F.3d 194 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 116 S. Ct. 874 (1996).
In Hodel v. Irving,[1] the U.S. Supreme Court declared section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA)[2] constituted an unconstitutional taking. Congress enacted the ILCA to prevent the splintering of land allotments as successive generations came to hold the... {Continue reading}