Whether a district court may, pretrial, decide an Indian status jurisdictional question

QUESTION PRESENTED The Ninth Circuit failed to analyze Petitioner’s jurisdictional issue as set forth in clear Ninth Circuit precedent, including Gomez, 87 F.3d at 1096; United States v. Nukida, 8 F.3d 665, 670 (9th Cir. 1993); Shortt Accountancy Corp., 785 F.2d at 1452; United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005); and United States v. Reza-Ramos, 816 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2016). As a result, a magistrate court in Arizona facing the same issue may now, pretrial, address an Indian status jurisdictional issue while a district court in Montana is permitted not to do so under the Ninth Circuit’s holding. Against this background the question presented is: Whether a district court may, pretrial, decide an Indian status jurisdictional question in light of conflicting Ninth Circuit law that results in a federal magistrate court in one state deciding the issue and a federal district court in a different state failing to so decide. i