Furry v. Miccosukee Cert Petition: State Dram Shop Actions and Immunity

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Furry Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Does Justice Brandeis’ opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919) support the concept of tribal sovereign immunity or should that accidental doctrine, questioned in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998), be revised and discarded, at least in the context of tribal alcoholic beverage commercial activities?
2. Do Title 18 U.S.C. § 1161 and Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), exclude tribal alcoholic beverage endeavors from sovereign immunity protection?
3. Does tribal sovereign immunity preclude a suit against an Indian Tribe which has obtained a state liquor license and has operated an alcoholic beverage facility pursuant to that liquor license and in the process has violated state law subjecting a license holder to liability?
Lower court materials here.

3 thoughts on “Furry v. Miccosukee Cert Petition: State Dram Shop Actions and Immunity”

  1. Judith A. Shapiro October 2, 2012 / 12:56 pm

    And another sov immunity flashing light

    On Oct 2, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Turtle Talk wrote:

    > >

  2. Pingback: Supreme Court 2012 Early Term Update | Turtle Talk
  3. Pingback: Miccosukee Tribe Brief in Opposition to Furry Cert Petition (Tribal Immunity and State Law Dram Shop Actions) | Turtle Talk

Comments are closed.