-- Practice/Services --Administrative AgenciesAlaska Native MattersBreach of Trust and Government MismanagementBusiness Law, Economic Development and Corporate CounselingChild WelfareConstruction and TransportationElection and Campaign LawEmployment LawEnvironmental LawGamingGeneral CounselHealth LawHousingHunting and Fishing RightsJurisdictional and Tribal Sovereignty IssuesLand ClaimsLegislative and LobbyingLitigation: Trial, Appellate and Supreme CourtNatural Resource DevelopmentSelf-Determination and Self-GovernanceTax LawTribal CodesTrust Land AcquisitionsWater Rights

An important part of our practice is the representation of our clients in litigation in federal, state and tribal courts nationwide. Our litigation practice and experience regularly includes work from the trial through appellate levels. Some of the significant cases that our firm has handled include:

• Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt, 125 S. Ct. 1172 (2005), aff'g Thompson v. Cherokee Nation of Okla., 334 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and rev'g Cherokee Nation and Shoshone Paiute Tribes v. Thompson, 311 F.3d 1054 (10th Cir. 2002), holding the United States liable for underpaying tribal contracts awarded under the Indian Self-Determination Act.
• Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 234 F.3d 714 (D.C. Cir. 2000), holding that an Alaska Native entity which enters into an Indian Self-Determination Act contract with the United States to operate a hospital should be treated like the federal government for purposes of federal labor laws.
• Bowen v. Doyle, 230 F.3d 525 (2d Cir. 2000), aff'g 880 F. Supp. 99 (W.D.N.Y. 1995), establishing exclusive tribal jurisdiction over matters of internal self-governance, and enjoining state courts from interfering with that jurisdiction.
• Wetsit v. Stafne, 44 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 1995), in which for the first time ever a federal court affirmed the jurisdiction of Indian tribes to prosecute felony crimes covered by the Major Crimes Act in tribal court. The Court also held that petitioners for habeas corpus relief must exhaust all remedies available in tribal court before going to federal court.
• Reich v. Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 4 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 1993), which held that the Department of Labor cannot interfere with the administration of hunting and fishing rights protected by treaty by imposing the Fair Labor Standards Act on a tribal organization.
• Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Auth., 928 F.2d 542 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 818 (1991), in which we successfully defended the $60 million Seneca Nation Settlement Act, which we had negotiated, from attack by a group of local non-Indians seeking to dismantle that settlement.
• Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 900 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir.), reh. denied, cert. denied, 500 U.S. 915 (1990) in which we defended tribal jurisdiction over Indians on reservation highways against an attack by the State. We were brought into the case following defeats by the tribes in state court and in federal district court on the issue, and succeeded in securing a tribal victory in the court of appeals, and preventing Supreme Court review of the decision.
• Pueblo of Zuni v. United States, No. CIV00-0365 LH/WWD (D.N.M.), consolidated into Ramah Navajo Chapter and Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Norton, No. CIV 90-0957 (the portion of a nationwide class action brought to recover damages for failure of Bureau of Indian Affairs to pay full tribal "direct" contract support costs required by ISDA) ($29 million partial settlement approved Dec. 6, 2002, sub nom. Ramah Navajo Chapter, Oglala Sioux Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni v. Norton, 250 F. Supp.2d 1303 (D.N.M. 2002)).

Our practice also regularly includes participation in cases before the United States Supreme Court, where members of the firm have briefed or argued dozens of cases. When he was Assistant to the Solicitor General in the Department of Justice, Harry Sachse was instrumental in persuading the Government to support Indian interests in most cases that came before the Court, and argued ten cases before the Court, including such landmark Indian law cases as McClanahan v. Ariz. Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973) (state taxation of reservation income), Wash. Dep't of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U.S. 44 (1973) (Indian fishing and hunting rights), Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) (reservation boundaries), United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975) (tribal governmental powers), and Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (preference in the hiring of Native Americans).

In the 2002 Term, the firm represented the Paiute-Shoshone Tribe in Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Cmty., which Reid Chambers argued for the Tribe. In the 2003, Term the firm represents amici in the McConnell campaign finance reform litigation. Most recently, in the 2004 Term the firm represented the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation in the ISDA contract support litigation. On March 1, 2005, the Supreme Court held in favor of the Tribes, establishing government liability for millions of dollars in damages for the Indian Health Services' failure to pay full contract support costs. Cherokee Nation of Okla. and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation v. Leavitt, 125 S. Ct. 1172 (2005). Click here for more information.

We participated as attorneys for tribal interests before the Court in the following Indian law cases: Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000); Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999); Alaska v. Native Vill. of Venetie, 522 U.S. 520 (1998); and Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Ariz., 463 U.S. 545 (1983). We also appeared before the Court in an election case in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983).

Our firm has also represented tribes in filing numerous "friend of the court," amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court, including in the following cases: Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 126 S.Ct. 676 (2005); Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001); Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (2001); Dep't of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001); Kiowa Tribe v. Mfg. Techs. Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998); South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998); Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997); Dep't of Interior v. South Dakoka, 519 U.S. 919 (1996); Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993); Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993); Blatchford v. Native Vill. of Noatak and Circle Vill., 501 U.S. 775 (1991); Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991); Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990); Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408 (1989); Wyoming v. United States, 492 U.S. 406 (1989); Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989); Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Graham, 489 U.S. 838 (1989); Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987); Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g, 476 U.S. 877 (1986); United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986); Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759 (1985); Nat'l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 (1985); Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Navajo Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 195 (1985); Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g, P.C., 467 U.S. 138 (1984); Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984); Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983); and United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978).

Finally, our firm has represented tribes in successfully resisting Supreme Court review of a favorable court of appeals decision in a number of cases including: Hammond v. Coeur d' Alene Tribe of Idaho, 384 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1187 (2005); United States v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 151 L. Ed.2d 260 (2001); Phelps Dodge Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1250 (2000); In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Gila River Sys. and Source, 989 P.2d 739 (Ariz. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1250 (2000); Vill. of Hotvela Traditional Elders v. Indian Health Serv., 1 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Ariz. 1997), aff'd, 141 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1107 (1999); Montana v. EPA, 137 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 921(1998); Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 900 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1990), reh'g denied, cert. denied, 500 U.S. 915 (1990); and Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Auth., 928 F.2d 542 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 818 (1991).