Catherine Munson is co-leader of the Native American Affairs practice. She has extensive litigation experience, representing tribal clients in a wide variety of complex cases before the Court of Federal Claims, federal district courts, federal appellate courts, the United States Supreme Court and administrative agencies. Ms. Munson specializes in water-related litigation and in advising clients on water matters, including water marketing, leasing, storage, protection of water quality, water regulation, and code drafting. Ms. Munson regularly advises clients on dealings with the Department of Interior and enforcement of the United States’ trust responsibility.
Ms. Munson is a regular speaker at Indian law conferences and co-chairs a tribal water law seminar each year.
Ms. Munson was awarded the Managing Partner Pro Bono award for her work on behalf of the Piro-Manso-Tiwa Tribe in southern New Mexico. Ms. Munson has been recognized in 2019 and the three years immediately preceding as a Washington D.C. “Super Lawyer” for Native American Law and as a 2013 Washington D.C. “Rising Star” for General Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine.
Lead counsel for the Ak-Chin Indian Community in its case against the Central Arizona Water Conservation District involving Ak-Chin’s congressional confirmed water settlement. Successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of Ak-Chin confirming Ak-Chin and the United States’ interpretation of Ak-Chin’s settlement Act resulting in additional water being delivered to Ak-Chin on an annual basis.
Lead counsel for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in its case against California water districts seeking a declaration and quantification of Agua Caliente’s federally reserved rights to groundwater. The Agua Caliente Tribe seeks to enjoin the water districts from further infringing on the Tribe’s federal rights by degrading the water quality in the Coachella Valley and over drafting the aquifer. The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Tribe holding it has a federally reserved right to groundwater. The matter is pending.
Successfully represented tribe in connection with self-governance funding and negotiated favorable settlement resulting in a substantial increase in annual funding for the tribe.
Successfully negotiated substantial settlements for four tribal clients in actions against the United States for mismanagement of trust funds and assets.
Successfully represented the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe in an action seeking to enforce the United States’ obligation to affirm or deny the Tribe’s amended gaming compact.
Successfully represented a Tribe and more than 1,000 allottees in a complex class action trespass claim against the United States regarding an expired transmission line right-of-way. The matter involved obtaining favorable rulings from both the United States Court of Federal Claims and the District Court for the District of Arizona.
Represented one of the most successful gaming Tribes in the country in a case before the National Labor Relations Board, defending the Tribe’s sovereign authority to apply its own Tribal employment laws in place of federal law. Also represented Tribe on campaign strategies prior to and during elections.
Obtained the first discovery ruling by a federal court requiring that the United States search through 34,000 boxes of records it stored at the American Indian Records Repository (AIRR) in Lenexa, Kansas. Prior to this decision, the United State required tribes to bear the burden of searching for the records.
Insights View All
Emory University School of Law, J.D. (1999)
Vanderbilt University, B.A., Political Science (1995)
District of Columbia (2009)
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.