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”:
Lots of discussion of Muskrat v. US (a Fed Courts standby) and the Keepseagle settlement:
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.
Here:
One or more positions may be filled in either Washington DC or Denver. The first cut-off date for referral of applicants will be 7/27/2026. The second cut-off date will be on the closing date of 8/17/2026.
The Tribal Resource Section (TRS) litigates to uphold and fulfill the United States’ trust responsibility to the nation’s 575 federally recognized Indian tribes. This includes defending the decisions of the Department of the Interior and other federal agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act in furtherance of tribal interests, as well as bringing civil affirmative actions to protect tribal lands, rights, resources, and jurisdiction. This litigation furthers the United States’ government-to-government relationships with tribal nations and generally promotes tribal sovereignty, protects tribal land bases, and ensures legal rights guaranteed by treaties and other reserved rights, such as water rights, reservation boundaries, hunting and fishing rights, and federal and tribal jurisdiction. The litigation handled by the Section is of vital interest to Indian tribes and often addresses issues of first impression.
Consistent with the Tribal Resources Section’s practice, the individual selected will be responsible for handling a range of matters, including some of the most complex and important cases currently arising in this area of the law. This position will allow the individual to utilize his or her superior legal research, writing, and oral advocacy skills in all aspects of negotiation, motions practice, and trial.
Here is the petition in Wilton Rancheria v. UNITE HERE:
Question presented:
Notwithstanding the deference afforded to arbitration awards, arbitrators lack the power to facially invalidate federal and state statutes. Similarly, courts defer to Tribal interpretation of Tribal law, as a critical element of longstanding policies upholding and safeguarding Tribal sovereignty. Does an arbitrator exceed his authority when he facially invalidates a duly-enacted Tribal law, especially when a court would not do so and when he would not be permitted to invalidate a duly-enacted federal or state statute?
Lower court materials here. Ninth Circuit unpublished opinion here.
Here is the opinion in Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Dept. of the Interior.
Briefs:
Lower court materials here.
Good luck on exams this week PLSIers!
Here are the merits briefs in Oxford v. Champion.
Opening Briefs
Response Briefs
Reply Briefs
Amicus Brief
Previous post on this matter is here.
Here:
Thursday – Friday, October 8 – 9, 2026
Thursday, October 8 | 1 – 5 p.m.
Friday, October 9 | 8 a.m. – 5 p.m.
In-Person and on Zoom
Fordham Law School
150 West 62nd Street
New York, NY 10023
CLE credit will be available.
About the Program
As the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, this groundbreaking symposium reexamines the promises—and unfinished work—of the American Revolution. Bringing together leading scholars, judges, practitioners, and advocates, The Unfinished American Revolution explores how the principles of equality, self-government, and consent of the governed have shaped—and often failed to shape—the constitutional relationship between the United States, Native nations, and U.S. territories.
Timed to coincide with the 125th anniversary of the Insular Cases and the 175th anniversary of the Indian Appropriations Act, the symposium will examine the enduring legacies of territorial governance, federal Indian law, and plenary power. Through interdisciplinary panels and forward-looking discussions, participants will confront some of the most pressing constitutional questions of our time: Who belongs within the American constitutional community? What does self-determination mean in the twenty-first century? And what would it take to finally fulfill the promises of 1776 for all peoples under U.S. sovereignty?
Kindly register here
Here is the complaint in Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Durrell (D. Kan.):
On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court, in Watson v. Republican National Committee, allowed Mississippi ballots cast on time to be counted after Election Day, as permitted under state law. The decision respects longstanding absentee ballot receipt rules. It also protects Native voters who are disproportionately affected by a dearth of voter services and postal delays beyond their control.
An amicus brief on behalf of the National Congress of American Indians, Alaska Federation of Natives, and Washington Conservation Action Education Fund was filed in the case. The brief explained that Native voters often are forced to mail in ballots because in-person voting is made less available in their communities. Meanwhile, Native communities often lack reliable mail delivery, have fewer postal services, and endure longer mail transit time, especially in Alaska Native communities. You can see the brief here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.