New Scholarship on State Tax Exemptions for Cultural Property

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Grant Christensen & Andrew Appleby have published “State Tax Exemptions for Cultural Property” in the Yale Law Review Forum.

Here is the abstract:

In 2026, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 1485, which exempts from real property transfer taxes certain transactions that return tribal land to tribes. This Essay examines AB 1485 as a model for how state tax policy can further tribal sovereignty by facilitating the return of culturally significant land to federally recognized Indian tribes. This Essay argues that state and local taxes imposed on the transfer of land to tribal governments create practical financial barriers to reacquisition, reinforcing the historic erosion of tribal land and limiting tribes’ ability to protect sacred sites and sustain community life. Understanding these tax burdens within the broader legacy of allotment and dispossession, this Essay contends that other states should adopt more durable and inclusive exemptions than AB 1485. By reframing transfer tax exemptions as a state’s recognition of inherent tribal sovereignty, and as a modest response to the colonial foundations of state land ownership, this Essay concludes that state tax reform can serve as a meaningful tool for states to participate in rebuilding reservation communities and in strengthening tribal-state relations.

Teri Greeves, tax-exempt?

Alaska Federal Court Denies Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, Orders Trial, in Metlakatla Fishing Rights Matter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Metlakatla Indian Community v. Dunleavy (D. Alaska):

95-1 Alaska Motion for Summary JDownload
134 Metlakatla ResponseDownload
139 Metlakatla Cross Motion for Summary JDownload
143 Alaska ReplyDownload
147 Metlakatla ReplyDownload
151 DCT OrderDownload

Prior posts here.

Katie John isn’t part of this case, but she’s still incredible.

Washington Federal Court Enjoins Broadband Construction Project that Disturbs Burial Sites

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lummi Tribe v. Whidbey Telephone Co. (W.D. Wash.):

29 Federal ResponseDownload
31 Whatcom County ResponseDownload
33 Telephone Co ResponseDownload
40 ReplyDownload
54 DCT Order Granting InjunctionDownload

Prior post here.

CFC Rejects Dakota “Half-Breeds” Claims against US

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Smith v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

1 Complaint.pdfDownload
9 Motion to Dismiss.pdfDownload
14 Response.pdfDownload
16 Reply.pdfDownload
21 Surreply.pdfDownload
22 CFC Opinion.pdfDownload

Ninth Circuit Materials in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs:

Opening Brief.pdfDownload
Tribal Orgs Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
States Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
American Gaming Assn Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
Kalshi Answer Brief.pdfDownload
Robinhood Answer Brief.pdfDownload
Reply.pdfDownload

Oral argument video here.

Lower court materials here.

Swinomish and Squaxin Island Sue over Endangered Species Act Regulatory Change

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. National Marine Fisheries Service (W.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint.pdfDownload

President Trump Revokes Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments Weeks after Tenth Circuit Decision

Matthew Campbell

On July 13, 2026, President Trump issued proclamations revoking the Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

This comes just weeks after the Tenth Circuit reversed the District of Utah’s dismissal of the lawsuits seeking to dismantle the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. The Tenth Circuit’s decision remanded the matter back to the District Court for further proceedings. Here is the briefing from the Tenth Circuit.

Tenth Circuit Decision:

Tenth Circuit Decision

Plaintiff’s Opening Briefs:

Opening Brief of Individual Plaintiffs

Opening Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants Garfield County, Utah, et al.

Response Briefs:

Federal Defendants’ Consolidated Answering Brief

Response Brief of Suwa Intervenors-Appellees

Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, And Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Response Brief

Plaintiffs’ Reply Briefs:

Reply Brief of Individual Plaintiffs

Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants Garfield County, Utah, et al.

Previous post with briefs here and here.

Sauk-Suiattle Sues State of Washington in Tribal Court Over Denial of State Social Services Benefits

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. Ferguson:

Complaint – 071326 – SAU-civ-0726-002.pdfDownload
Complaint Exhibits SAU-civ-0726-002.pdfDownload
Preliminary Injunction Motion – July 13, 2026 – SAU-civ-0726-002.pdfDownload
Affidavit SAU-civ-0726-002.pdfDownload

From the tribe’s legal counsel:

The civil action (No. SAU-civ-07/26-002) seeks to enjoin various officials of the State of Washington from deducting nominal property of $300 ($450 to Elders) which the tribe provides to its members and applying the value of such property to reduce or deny eligibility for certain programs which the tribe’s people otherwise entitled.

Qwalsius

Trump v. IRS Decision (Not an Indian Law Case, or is it?)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Trump v. IRS (S.D. Fla.) dismissing the case in which DOJ agreed to pay the Trump family and business $1.776 Billion and sanctioning DOJ attorneys who signed off on the “settlement”:

Trump v IRS DCT Decision.pdfDownload

Lots of discussion of Muskrat v. US (a Fed Courts standby) and the Keepseagle settlement:

Page 14-15, discussing Muskrat.
Page 28 (discussing Keepseagle).

Meghan Gupta on History and Tradition in Federal Indian Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Meghanlata Gupta has published “‘In Keeping with the Constitution’s Original Design”: History and Tradition in Federal Indian Law” in the Public Land & Resources Law Review.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

Here is the abstract:

This Article examines the Supreme Court’s use of history and tradition in federal Indian law. In recent years, the Court has increasingly relied on Founding-era practices and historical traditions to determine constitutional meaning in areas such as firearm regulation, substantive due process, and religious liberty. At the same time, while the Founding-era record contains substantial evidence that Native nations were understood and treated as independent, sovereign political communities, this evidence has not yet been fully incorporated into the Supreme Court’s Indian law jurisprudence. Examining decisions from Oliphant to Castro-Huerta, this Article describes the Court’s approaches to historical analysis in Indian law cases and identifies areas where deeper engagement with the historical record could inform the doctrine. By centering Indian law within the broader history-and-tradition framework, this Article argues that more consistent applications of history support the robust conception of tribal sovereignty contemplated at the Founding.
Buffalo Bill and Herman Melville flashing west coast gang signs— Ray Martin Abeyta