Here is the cert petition in Grand River Enterprises Six Nations v. Beebe: Grand River Enterprises Cert Petition
And the lower court opinion: CA8 Opinion
The questions presented:
1. In 2002, Petitioner, Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. (“Grand River”), commenced a lawsuit against the Attorneys General of thirty-one (31) States in federal district court in New York, challenging model legislation adopted by their respective States to implement the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has twice held that Petitioner’s antitrust and Commerce Clause challenges to the model legislation state a claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Although the State of Arkansas adopted the same model legislation, the Arkansas Attorney General was not included in that lawsuit, because, at that time, the State of Arkansas had not enforced, nor threatened enforcement of, the model legislation against Petitioner. In this later-filed action against the Arkansas Attorney General, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with one Judge dissenting, has held that challenges to the model legislation in Arkansas – challenges identical to those permitted by the Second Circuit – fail to state a claim. As such, the question presented is whether, despite the decisions of the Second Circuit holding and acknowledging that Petitioner has stated a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) that model legislation enacted by thirty-one (31) States to implement the MSA violates the Sherman Act, the Eighth Circuit erred in affirming dismissal of Petitioner’s Sherman Act challenge to the same model legislation enacted by the State of Arkansas, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
2. Whether, despite the decisions of the Second Circuit holding and acknowledging that Petitioner has stated a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) that model legislation enacted by thirty-one (31) States to implement the MSAviolates the Commerce Clause, the Eighth Circuit erred in affirming dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) of Petitioner’s Commerce Clause challenge to the same model legislation enacted by the State of Arkansas.
3. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in ruling that the Petitioner has not pled a prima facie claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it alleges that the Arkansas legislation requires Petitioner to undertake the payment, obligations of an MSA class of tobacco manufacturers, but does not extend to Petitioner certain benefits that inure to that same class pursuant to the terms of the MSA.
4. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in ruling that the Petitioner has not pled a prima facie claim with respect to the Arkansas legislation violating substantive and procedural due process by requiring Petitioner to enter into a settlement with forty-five (45) other States and fund an escrow account for Arkansas’ benefits based on Petitioner’s share of the national cigarette market, and by not providing for a hearing prior to Petitioner being required to make deposits into the escrow account, with said deposits being held for twenty-five years.
5. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in ruling the Petitioner has not pled a prima facie claim with respect to the Arkansas legislation violating the First Amendment by granting financial concessions and exemptions only to certain manufacturers that joined the MSA and agreed to restrict their freedoms of speech, petitioning, and association pursuant to the terms of the MSA.
Turtle Talk 