We have broad experience in representing clients in federal, state, and tribal judicial and administrative forums, and before arbitration panels.
In the federal context, our lawyers have represented tribal interests in litigation regarding
- reserved Treaty rights
Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa Indians v. Carlson, 63 F. 3d 253 (8th Cir. 1995) - compensation for ceded property
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. United States, Docket Nos. 19 & 188 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 1999) - reservation boundaries and tribal jurisdiction
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. Granholm, No. 05-10296 (E.D. Mich. 2006)
Melby v. Grand Portage Band of Chippewa 1998 WL 1769706 (D. Minn. 1998) - the application of federal laws to tribal enterprises
EEOC v. Fond du Lac Heavy Equipment, 986 F. 2d 246 (8th Cir. 1993) - the taxability of tribal lands and assets
Leech Lake Band of Chippewa v. Cass County, Minnesota, 524 U.S. 103 (1998)
Tunica-Biloxi Tribe v. Bridges, 437 F. Supp. 2d 599 (M.D. La. 2006) - tribal rights to receive municipal services from nearby communities
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. City of Prior Lake, 771 F. 2d 1153 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied 475 U.S. 1011 (1986) - intellectual property rights
Prairie Island Indian Community v. Treasure Island Corporation, Consolidated Cancellation No. 28, 126 (TTAB 1997) - contract disputes over tribal casino management
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. The Bruce Lien Company, 93 F.3d 1412 (8th Cir. 1996)
Bad River Band of Chippewa v. Teague, 665 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. 2003) - the right to offer class III gaming
Lower Sioux Indian Community v. State of Minnesota, Civ. No. 4-89-936 (D. Minn. 1991) - the federal government's involvement in internal tribal affairs
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Babbitt, 107 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 1997)
Smith v. Babbitt, 100 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 1996)
The Firm's lawyers have also represented their clients in numerous federal administrative proceedings before the National Indian Gaming Commission, including suitability determinations, management-contract approvals, gaming-ordinance approvals and minimum-internal-control variance requests.
In state courts, we have successfully vindicated our clients' interests in cases involving state efforts to tax activities on an Indian reservation (Pourier v . South Dakota Department of Revenue, 674 N.W.2d 314 (S.D. 2004)), tribal rights to resolve employment claims in tribal court (Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., 555 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. 1996)), the obligation of non-tribal litigants to exhaust available tribal-court remedies before seeking redress in state court (Klammer v. The Lower Sioux Convenience Store, 535 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)) and numerous Indian child welfare cases both as representatives of tribal parties and as amici curiae.
Our lawyers have represented their tribal clients in innumerable tribal-court proceedings, both in the context of litigation and in appeals from the decisions of tribal administrative bodies.
