Evaluating Tribal Claims Against Trump’s Anti-DEI and Immigrant-Enforcement Grant Conditions

By Joe Sexton and Rachel Tobias

As part of this second Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to weave right-wing cultural and partisan political issues into every facet of federal governance, agency heads have announced new funding terms and conditions that attach sweeping new obligations to grant awards (including those for which Congress appropriated funding prior to this administration) meant to fund local infrastructure, homelessness initiatives, housing subsidies, and public transit. Tribal nations are not exempt from the impacts.

These new terms and conditions range from requiring grant recipients to certify they have purged their institutions of any diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies (without respect to whether or not such policies actually violate federal antidiscrimination laws), to mandating cooperation with immigration‑enforcement authorities[1], and affirming compliance with a selection of President Trump’s slate of politically motivated executive orders, which are unrelated to the underlying grant purposes.

The new conditions raise major risks for grantees, including Tribal nations, because agreeing contractually to such new and far-reaching terms and conditions may require radically altering governmental policies, harm minority groups those governments serve, and subject Tribal government officials to criminal liability if the administration decides they have not adequately complied with the terms.[2]  

In King County v. Turner, a federal court has held that these new terms and conditions likely exceeded statutory authority and are arbitrary and capricious under the  Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and has issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the federal government from making the grant funds contingent on the plaintiff grant recipients agreeing to the new terms and conditions.[3]

Because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA Inc., earlier this year, the injunction does not preclude the government from enforcing these terms and conditions on any local government that is not named as a Turner plaintiff.[4]

The list of federal agencies seeking to impose the new conditions on a vast array of grant recipients is growing. Tribal nations should understand that if a federal agency seeks to impose new conditions on a grant award or subaward—especially after the appropriation and without clear statutory authorization—there may be grounds to challenge such conditions in court like the plaintiffs in King County v. Turner.

The typical path is to bring an APA claim (or related constitutional claim) in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. 

Simply put, the administration’s attempt to impose its own requirements on these grant funds violates not only the APA, but the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.  Congress holds the power of the purse, not the Executive Branch.

Lawsuits similar to the Turner case are being filed around the country: a coalition of 17 domestic violence and homelessness‑service nonprofits recently secured a preliminary injunction in Rhode Island against grant conditions that would have required them to eliminate DEI initiatives.[5] And the Chicago Housing Authority is suing over new HUD‑imposed anti‑DEI conditions, arguing that only Congress may attach conditions to federal funds.[6]

For Tribal nations facing an effort by a federal agency to impose the new terms and conditions on an approved grant, you can consider seeking injunctive relief. The key first step is mapping whether your funding flows directly from the federal agency or through a subrecipient or pass‑through, and whether the new conditions are being applied to  grant programs you participate in.[7]

If the conditions are being applied or you determine they are likely to be, seeking injunctive relief is an option even if you have not received a notice regarding the new conditions from the applicable agency. Even if you’re not currently a plaintiff in ongoing nationwide suits, you may have independent standing to challenge your own award’s conditions and potentially join or coordinate with broader coalitions.

The important takeaway is that the legal landscape is active: agencies are facing successful challenges, and Tribal nations should assess their grants proactively rather than assuming there is no recourse.

Joe Sexton is a partner at Galanda Broadman, whose practice focuses on complex civil litigation defending Indigenous rights and litigating tribal environmental and cultural resources disputes in federal, tribal, state, and administrative forums.

Rachel Tobias is of counsel at Galanda Broadman, supporting the firm’s tribal law and Indigenous rights practice. Rachel holds a JD from the University of New Mexico School of Law and an LL.M. in Fashion Law from Fordham University School of Law.

APPENDIX

Galanda Broadman Files State Supreme Court Amicus Brief Regarding Police Violence Against Indigenous Women

On Friday, Galanda Broadman filed an amicus brief with the Washington State Supreme Court on behalf of the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability (WCPA), regarding the disproportionate violence suffered by Indigenous women at the hands of state police officers who are meant to protect them.

Gabe Galanda, Ryan Dreveskracht, and Shelby Stoner filed the brief for WCPA, supporting Jacqueline Salyer’s family’s appeal of a Washington State Court of Appeals decision that effectively permits the City of Tacoma to evade liability for its negligent retention of a patrol officer with a history of violence against women.

Jaqueline, a member of the Puyallup Tribe, was killed by Tacoma police officers in 2016.

WCPA is a coalition of families who have lost loved ones to police violence, advocates, experts, and organizations, working together on statewide policies to reduce police violence and increase accountability.

Over the last ten years, Galanda Broadman lawyers have successfully brought claims against Lakewood, Poulsbo, and Olympia’s police departments, as well as the King and Snohomish County Sheriff’s offices, for taking the lives of Indigenous men and women.

Defending Against ICE Attacks on Tribal Lands

By Gabriel S. Galanda

There are growing reports of federal ICE agents entering Tribal reservations and business establishments, including casinos, to stop, interrogate, and detain people. With ICE’s on-reservation activities causing fear and terror within Tribal communities, Tribal nations should consider how to defend against these attacks on their lands and communities.

First and foremost, several Tribal nations enjoy Treaty rights that require the United States Department of Homeland Security to notify, consult with, and obtain permission from Tribal leaders before ICE agents enter Tribal lands or facilities.  The Yakama Treaty of 1855, for example, requires all federal departments other than the Indian Department—today’s Bureau of Indian Affairs—to obtain permission from the Yakama Nation before entering the Yakama Reservation. 

The Yakama Treaty also contains a Treaty provision that requires federal law enforcement agents to consult with Yakama leaders before taking any action on Yakama Reservation against so-called “offenders against the laws of the United States.”

Every Tribal Treaty nation should review their Treaty to consider what reserved rights they have to require ICE to notify, consult with, and obtain permission from Tribal leaders before entering Tribal lands or facilities.

The Department Homeland Security’s own Directive on Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Nations (No. 071-04 (Dec. 15, 2002)) requires it and ICE to uphold “the various treaties and other agreements made between the governments” of the United States and Tribal people.  That federal law enforcement directive also requires the Department to consult with Tribal nations before taking any action that impacts the Tribes’ “inherent sovereign rights and governance over . . . their territories.” 

Both Tribal Treaties and this Directive provide a legal and political basis for Tribal nations to demand notice and consultation before ICE enters their territories.

In addition, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) emphasizes “the contribution of the demilitarization of the lands and territories of indigenous peoples to peace, economic and social progress and development, understanding and friendly relations among nations and peoples of the world.” Article 30 of the UNDRIP provides:

Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned,

and States like the United States,

. . . shall undertake effective consultations with the indigenous peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, prior to using their lands or territories for military activities.

These international human rights laws and norms provide Tribal nations additional legal and political grounds to stand up against ICE and demand that that their inherent sovereignty and territorial authority be respected. In this way, Tribal nations can help protect their people and communities from harm at the hands of ICE agents.

Gabe is an Indigenous rights attorney and the managing lawyer at Galanda Broadman. His practice focuses on complex, multi-party litigation and crisis management, representing Indigenous nations, businesses and citizens. He has been named to Best Lawyers in America in the fields of Native American Law and Gaming Law from 2007 to 2026, and dubbed a Super Lawyer by his peers from 2013 to 2025.

Protecting Tribal Youth in the Social Media Era

By Jessica Ditmore

In 1998, forty-six states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia struck a landmark settlement with four of the nation’s largest tobacco companies, aiming both to recoup smoking-related health care costs and curb the industry’s deceptive advertising practices.[1] The pact, known as the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”), was set to pay out $206 billion over the next 25 years, creating a revenue stream for the states.[2]

Despite Big Tobacco’s harm to Tribal communities, Tribal nations were not included in that pact and later Tribal attempts to receive a portion of the $206 billion under the MSA were unsuccessful.[3] But heeding the lessons of the MSA debacle, Tribal nations have since sued Big Pharma and recently secured financial settlements in opioid class action litigation.[4] Tribes have now set their sights on Big Tech.

Mirroring earlier battles against Big Tobacco and Big Pharma, Tribal nations have sued Meta, the owner and operator of Facebook and Instagram, to redress Tribal youth addiction to social media.

In the wake of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in NetChoice v. Bonta, Tribes now have a unique opportunity to legislate, bring litigation, and shape policy regarding Tribal youth social media consumption. In doing so, Tribes can work to protect the health and welfare of their people while seeking damages against social media companies that are inflicting harm to their communities.

State and Tribal Lawsuits Against Meta to Protect Youth and Fight Deceptive Corporate Practices

In October of 2023, a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general filed a federal lawsuit against Meta for harming adolescent mental health and contributing to the youth mental health crisis.[5] The complaint alleges that Meta specifically uses design features to keep users on the platform, creating addiction and compulsive use.[6] Like tobacco companies in the late 1900’s, the complaint alleges that Meta deceptively downplays the harmful effects of its social media platforms.[7] Documents leaked from within Meta by a whistleblower show the company has known about, yet hidden, the dangers of its platform for years.[8]

Over the last few years, families have brought suit in what has morphed into multi-district litigation (“MDL”) against Meta.[9] Most recently, several Tribal nations have also filed complaints against Meta.[10] For example, the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma sued Meta for damages for deliberately targeting adolescents through addictive algorithms and other harmful practices, which have disproportionately impacted vulnerable Tribal youth.[11]

All of the Tribal complaints highlight efforts the Tribal plaintiffs have put into their health and welfare programs and the additional strains the mental health crisis is causing their communities.[12] The complaints allege claims for racketeering, public nuisance, fraud, negligence, product liability, failure to warn, and unjust enrichment.[13]

Current Legal Status of Legislation to Protect Children from Addictive Social Media Feeds

In September, the Ninth Circuit published an opinion that affirmed an injunction against addictive algorithms under California’s SB 976, “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act”[14] The Act limits “addictive feed”—which is defined as media “generated or shared by users are, either concurrently or sequentially, recommended, selected, or prioritized for display” based “on information provided by the user, or otherwise associated with the user or the user’s device”—by prohibiting Meta from using any information provided by a minor user to decide what content to show that individual.[15]

The Act also prohibits minors from seeing how many likes, shares, or other forms of feedback a post has received within a personalized recommendation feed, and requires minors accounts to be private.[16]

Netchoice, an internet trade association whose members include Google (which owns and operates YouTube), Meta, Nextdoor, Pinterest, and X (formerly Twitter) challenged the Act on First Amendment grounds.[17] The Ninth Circuit opinion granted an injunction against the portion of California’s law hiding likes, shares and other forms of feedback because that regulation was content based, thus strict scrutiny applied.[18] However, it affirmed the district court’s denial of an injunction for the addictive feed aspect of the law because Netchoice neither had standing, nor provided enough facts to support a facial challenge.[19]

Notably, the Ninth Circuit court rejected Netchoice’s challenge that the Act’s “addictive feed” standard was unconstitutionally vague.[20] The Act adequately defined “addictive feed,” and its exceptions were such that a person of ordinary intelligence could understand.[21] When discussing the First Amendment challenge to the regulation of the algorithms themselves, the Ninth Circuit noted that an algorithm promoting a platform’s own message is likely to be protected speech.[22] Although, an algorithm that “respond[s] solely to how users act online,” merely “giving them the content they appear to want,” probably is not expressive.”[23]

The Ninth Circuit could not yet determine if the algorithms at issue in Netchoice were more expressive than responsive because the facts had not been sufficiently demonstrated to support a facial challenge and Meta lacks associational standing for its as-applied challenge.[24] That decision may very well be for another day.

Tribal Legal Considerations Moving Forward

The NetChoice opinion is notable because it could weaken Meta’s First Amendment defenses to lawsuits brought by state attorneys general and Tribal nations over the addictive nature and misleading marketing of social media platforms. If the “addictive feed” algorithms are not considered messaging or protected speech, but instead a product function, it strengthens the argument that there are viable Tribal product liability causes of action for the harm these companies are causing Tribal youth.

As the MDL and Tribal complaints move forward, the Netchoice opinion strengthens the case for states and Tribes to consider passing their own consumer protection statutes against social media platforms, possibly mirroring California’s. With Tribes currently suing Meta under general tort theories and federal RICO statutes, Tribal youth protection laws could create an independent Tribal statutory cause of action to be brought in Tribal Court.

That would open questions of Tribal enforceability against Big Tech, including whether Montana I or Montana II exceptions apply.[25] Considering the health and welfare implications of regulatory schemes like SB 976, the application of Montana II over Tribal statutory corollaries seems strong, despite its sparing application.[26]  If SB 976 ultimately withstands federal judicial scrutiny, Tribal nations will have even greater opportunity to protect Tribal youth and hold Meta and Big Tech to account for harm to those young ones.

Jessica is an associate attorney at Galanda Broadman. Her practice focuses on representing Tribal governments and businesses.

[1] Master Settlement Agreement, Settlement Agreement Between the Attorneys General of 46 States and the Participating Tobacco Manufacturers (Nov. 23, 1998), available at https://web.archive.org/web/20080625084126/http://www.naag.org/backpages/naag/tobacco/msa/msa-pdf/1109185724_1032468605_cigmsa.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] Public Health Law Center, Roadmap to a National Settlement Agreement: E-Cigarettes (Mar. 2021), https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/Juul-Roadmap-to-NSA.pdf.

[4] Abbie VanSickle, "Native American Tribes Sue Over Opioid Crisis," The New York Times, Feb. 1, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/01/health/opioids-native-american-tribes.html.

[5] State of Arizona, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., No. 4:23-cv-05448 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023), https://cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/cases-of-interest/InRe-SocialMedia-Adolescent-Addiction-Personal-Injury-Products-Liability-Litigation/MDL-3047-Multistate-Attorneys-General-Complaint.pdf.

[6] Id. at ¶¶ 1-6, 118.

[7] Id. at ¶¶ 6-7, 53.

[8] Id. at ¶ 594.

[9] Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Master Complaint (Personal Injury), In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, No. 4:22-MD-03047-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2023), https://cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/cases-of-interest/InRe-SocialMedia-Adolescent-Addiction-Personal-Injury-Products-Liability-Litigation/MDL-3047-Personal-Injury-Plaintiffs-Second-Amended-Master-Complaint.pdf.

[10] Native News Online Staff, The Chickasaw Nation Sues Social Media Juggernauts, Native News Online (Sept. 26, 2025), https://nativenewsonline.net/health/the-chickasaw-nation-sues-social-media-juggernauts.

[11] The Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma v. Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a Facebook, Inc. et al, No. 3:25-cv-07846-YGR (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025), https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/60157049/The_Chickasaw_Nation_of_Oklahoma_v_Meta_Platforms,_Inc_fka_Facebook,_Inc_et_al, https://turtletalk.blog/2025/09/17/chickasaw-nation-sues-social-media-platforms/.

[12] See id. at ¶¶ 15, 24-26.

[13] See id. at ¶¶ 304- 393.

[14] NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, 23 F.4th 1048 (9th Cir. 2024), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/09/09/25-146.pdf.  

[15] Id. slip opinion at 9, citing 2024 Cal. Stats. ch. 321, SB 976, 2023–24 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2024) (codified at Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 27000–07).

[16] Id.

[17] NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, slip op. at 12.

[18] Id. at 23.

[19] Id. at 39-40.

[20] Id. at 36-37.

[21] Id.

[22] Id. at 18; see TikTok Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S. __, 145 S. Ct. 57, 72 (2025); Moody, 603 U.S. at 731 (discussing Arkansas Ed. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 674 (1998)); see also id. at 732–34, 738.

[23] Id. (citing Moody, 736 n.5); accord id. at 746 (Barrett, J., concurring).

[24] Id. at 32-33, 39-40.

[25] Montana v. United States, 593 U.S. 345, 565-566 (1981).

[26] United States v. Cooley, 593 U.S. 345, 354 (2021) (quoting Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316, 330 (2008)).

Gabe Galanda Quoted on Book Cover: "Who Gets to Be Indian?"

Gabe Galanda is quoted on the back cover of Dina Gilio-Whitaker's new book, "Who Gets to Be Indian?" He is also cited and quoted in the book regarding neocolonial Tribal disenrollment.

“Indigeneity is caught between truth tellers and tricksters. With abiding concern for tribal nationhood, Dina Gilio-Whitaker boldly espouses our truths while confronting the tricksters among us. Indigenous America needs more truth tellers like her and books like this.”
—Gabe Galanda, Indigenous rights attorney

You can buy her book here.

Making the Case for Tribal Forestry Breach of Trust Claims

By Ethan Jones

The United States Bureau of Indian Affairs has mismanaged Tribal forests in the Pacific Northwest for decades, but Tribes are fighting back. 

In a series of lawsuits against the Department of the Interior, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation have separately pursued breach of trust claims arising from federal forest mismanagement or wildfire mismanagement of their Reservation forests.[i]  Federal efforts to dismiss those lawsuits were rejected, demonstrating the continued viability of Tribal forestry breach of trust claims to this day.[ii]  Tribes should strongly consider bringing forestry breach of trust claims to recover damages resulting from federal mismanagement of their federal forest lands.

United States Statutes Create Actionable Federal Trust Duties

Through legislation enacted over the last 120 years, Congress established a comprehensive legal framework to manage Tribal forests on a sustained-yield basis for the benefit of Tribes and individual Indian allottees.[iii]  The Department of the Interior is charged with carrying out those federal obligations to manage Tribal forests, which Interior accomplishes in accordance with related regulations and policies.[iv]  Federal courts have reviewed this body of statutes, regulations, and policies, and determined that the United States assumed enforceable trust duties upon itself for the management of Tribal forest lands, the breach of which is answerable in money damages.[v] 

While the United States generally benefits from sovereign immunity against any such money damages claims, Congress waived sovereign immunity in the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act for certain Tribal breach of trust claims asserted in the United States Court of Federal Claims.[vi]  To access this waiver of sovereign immunity, Tribes must establish that the United States enacted substantive sources of law that create federal trust duties, assert that the United States breached those trust duties, and demonstrate that the substantive sources of law can be fairly interpreted as mandating compensation for the breach.[vii]  Tribal forestry breach of trust claims represent the gold standard for satisfying this test.

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983), which is regularly referred to as Mitchell II, is the foundational case for Tribal forestry breach of trust claims.  In Mitchell II, the Quinault Tribe and individual Indian allottees sued the United States for failing to manage their timber on a sustained-yield basis, failing to secure fair market value for their timber, and failing to rehabilitate their Reservation forest lands following timber harvests, among other claims.[viii]  The United States moved to dismiss the claims as inadequate to trigger the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity under the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act.[ix]  In rejecting the United States’ arguments, the Supreme Court reviewed the forestry statutes and regulations at issue and found that the United States assumed trust duties to manage Tribal forests, the breach of which is answerable in money damages.[x]

Following Mitchell II, the United States remained intransigent in their refusal to meet their trust duties owed to Tribes to responsibly manage their Reservation forests.  Congress responded by enacting the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (“NIFRMA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 3101 et seq., which provides significantly more clarity on the exact role that the United States should be performing in its management of Tribal forest lands.  Importantly, NIFRMA obligates the Secretary of the Interior to perform “forest land management activities,” which is defined to include a detailed list of forest management, insect and disease treatment, wildfire prevention, and wildfire suppression-related activities.[xi]

While NIFRMA has been good law since the 1990’s, the Court of Federal Claims has not relied on NIFRMA as a meaningful basis for Tribal forestry breach of trust claims until the Yakama Nation and Colville cases over the past few years.[xii]  In asserting forestry mismanagement and wildfire mismanagement claims against the United States, the Yakama Nation and Colville both relied principally on the same body of laws and regulations that were at issue in Mitchell II, but they went one step further.  Both Tribes asserted that NIFRMA’s list of forest land management activities was actually a supplement to the list of the actionable trust duties that were recognized in Mitchell II, which were actionable as a basis for Tribal forestry breach of trust claims. 

In a significant series of decisions for the future of Tribal forestry breach of trust cases, the Court of Federal Claims generally agreed.[xiii]  While the Court was unwilling to say that NIFRMA, standing alone, could sustain a Tribal forestry breach of trust claim, it held that claims based on both the comprehensive suite of laws at issue in Mitchell II and NIFRMA were sufficient to trigger the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity and survive federal motions to dismiss.[xiv] 

Tribes will still have to win on the facts, but these decisions make it clear that a well-pled complaint asserting a breach of the trust duties set forth in NIFRMA, with appropriate citations to the statutes and regulations at issue in Mitchell II, is likely to survive federal motions to dismiss in the Court of Federal Claims.

Crucial to Tribal Sovereignty, Tribal Forests Require Strong Legal Protection

Strong and resilient Reservation forests are a critical part of Tribal efforts to enhance and preserve natural and cultural resources for their future generations, to provide trust income that funds essential governmental services, and to support Tribal forest economies.  The United States has affirmatively assumed the obligation to manage those resources for Tribes, often at the expense of any given Tribe’s own forest management decisions.  Where the United States fails to meet its management obligations, it should be held accountable to the Tribe for any resulting damages. 

The legal landscape for Tribal forestry breach of trust claims is more favorable now than it has been in years.  Tribes should strongly consider pursuing Tribal forestry breach of trust claims wherever necessary to hold the United States accountable for mismanaging such critically important Tribal trust resources.

Ethan Jones is Of Counsel for Galanda Broadman, where he provides general civil legal representation to Tribes and their economic enterprises, including on Tribal forestry breach of trust claims.  Ethan can be reached by phone at (509) 317-1430, and by email at ethan@galandabroadman.com.

[i] Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, et al. v. United States, No. 1:19-cv-01966 (Fed. Cl. filed 2019); Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, et al. v. United States, No. 1:21-cv-01527 (Fed. Cl. filed 2021); Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. United States, No. 1:21-cv-01664 (Fed. Cl. filed 2021).

[ii] Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, et al. v. United States, 153 Fed. Cl. 676 (2021); Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. United States, 171 Fed. Cl. 622 (2024); Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, et al. v. United States, 171 Fed. Cl. 692 (2024).

[iii] See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 196; 25 U.S.C. § 406; 25 U.S.C. § 407; 25 U.S.C. §§ 3103 et seq.; 25 U.S.C. § 5109; 16 U.S.C. § 594.

[iv] See, e.g., 25 C.F.R. Part 163.

[v] See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983); Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon v. United States, 248 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

[vi] 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491(a)(1), 1505.

[vii] United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290-91 (2009).

[viii] United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 210.

[ix] Id.

[x] Id. at 226.

[xi] 25 U.S.C. §§ 3103(4), 3104(a).

[xii] See also The Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation v. United States, No. 12-429L (Fed. Cl. Aug. 21, 2015) (vacated following settlement) (relying on NIFRMA to help establish the Court’s jurisdiction over a Tribal forest wildfire breach of trust claim).

[xiii] Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, et al. v. United States, 153 Fed. Cl. at 703-05; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. United States, 171 Fed. Cl. at 635; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, et al. v. United States, 171 Fed. Cl. at 711-12.

[xiv] Id.

Gabe Galanda, Shelby Stoner Again Ranked Among Best Lawyers in America

Gabe Galanda and Shelby Stoner’s peers have named them both to the prestigious Best Lawyers in America list for 2026.

Gabe has been honored among the Best Lawyers in America® in Native American and gaming law for the twentieth consecutive year. He has also been dubbed a Super Lawyer by his peers from 2013 to 2025. He is the managing lawyer at Galanda Broadman.

For the second consecutive year, Shelby has been named “One to Watch” by Best Lawyers in America in the fields of environmental and labor and employment litigation. She was also named a Rising Star by by Super Lawyers® magazine in 2024 and 2025. She is Of Counsel at Galanda Broadman.

Former Army JAG Lawyer Jessica Ditmore Joins Galanda Broadman

Jessica Ditmore has joined Galanda Broadman PLLC as an Associate, focusing on litigation involving Tribal governments and enterprises.

Jessica joins the firm after serving on active duty for nearly five years in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps. As a JAG officer, she was an Administrative and National Security Law Attorney for the 1st Cavalry Division, and later a Prosecutor for the 82nd Airborne Division. She still serves in the U.S. Army Reserves. 

“We are ecstatic to have somebody of the caliber and strength as Jessica join our firm,” said Gabe Galanda, the firm’s managing lawyer. “She will serve and defend our Tribal clients well.”

Prior to the military, Jessica worked as a legal fellow and prosecutor for the San Carlos Apache Tribe.

Jessica graduated from the University of Arizona Law School in 2019, where she received a certificate in Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy and served on the Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Healthcare Policy from Mount Saint Mary’s University.

Jessica is licensed to practice law in the state of New Mexico.

Galanda Broadman PLLC is an Indigenous rights law firm with offices in Seattle and Yakima, Washington and Bend, Oregon.

Three Galanda Broadman Indigenous Rights Lawyers Again Honored by Super Lawyers

Indigenous rights lawyers Gabe Galanda (Round Valley), Amber Penn-Roco (Chehalis), and Shelby Stoner were once again honored by Super Lawyers magazine for 2025.

Gabe was again named a “Super Lawyer” and Amber and Shelby were each named “Rising Stars,” all in the field of Native American Law.

Gabe’s practice focuses on complex, multi-party litigation and crisis management, representing Indigenous nations, businesses and citizens. He has now been named a Super Lawyer for each of the last twelve years.

Amber’s practice focuses on Tribal sovereignty issues, including environmental issues, economic development, and complex Indian Country litigation. She has been named a Rising Star in each of the last several years.

Shelby’s practice focuses on high-impact cases involving Tribal law, Indigenous rights and other civil rights matters, land and environmental issues, and appellate litigation. She was named a Rising Star in 2024 and 2025.

With nine lawyers and offices in Seattle and Yakima, Washington and Bend, Oregon, the firm is dedicated to advancing and protecting Indigenous rights.

Gabe Galanda Mentioned in New York Times

Gabe Galanda mentioned by Harvard scholar Philip Deloria in the New York Times Book Review. He is profiled in regard to Tribal disenrollment in Joseph Lee's new book, “Nothing More of This Land."

The passage:

“Lee recruits experts to make sense of it all, and the book features compelling profiles of Indigenous leaders and intellectuals: the Anishinaabe legal scholar Matthew Fletcher, who complicates Lee’s idea of tribal sovereignty; the Yup’ik activist Sophie Swope, who walks him through Alaska’s complex multi-jurisdictional governance system; the Round Valley lawyer Gabe Galanda, who educates him on tribal disenrollment. Speaking to people like Galanda, Lee sees how casino revenue can distort Native identities, with some tribal governments expelling members to claim larger pieces of the pie.”

Gabe Galanda is an Indigenous rights attorney and the managing lawyer at Galanda Broadman. He has been named to Best Lawyers in America in the fields of Native American Law and Gaming Law from 2007 to 2025, and dubbed a Super Lawyer by his peers from 2013 to 2025.