Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Salazar Denial of TRO and Additional Documents

Complaint here.

Enterprise denying TRO and Mandamus

Patchak is indistinguishable from the present case because no Plaintiff claims an interest in the Proposed Site, meaning that this is not a quiet title action and the QTA’s limitation on suits related to Indian lands does not apply. Patchak squarely addressed the supposedly irreparable harm that Plaintiffs complain of and indicated that federal district courts do have  the power to strip the federal government of title to land taken  into trust for an Indian tribe under the APA so long as the claimant does not assert an interest in the land. In this case, Plaintiffs only seek to divest the government of its title. They do not assert an interest in the Proposed Site. Plaintiffs have    therefore not shown that the mere act of transferring the  Proposed Site into trust on February 1, 2013 constitutes   irreparable harm, and a TRO is therefore inappropriate.

Enterprise Docket Sheet 01302013
US Opposition – Enterprise

This entry was posted in Author: Kate E. Fort, fee to trust, gaming, Research and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Salazar Denial of TRO and Additional Documents

  1. Pingback: Updated Documents in Enterprise Rancheria Trust Acquisition Case | Turtle Talk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s