MCN Supreme Court Decides Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Anderson
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Upper Skagit v. Sauk-Suiattle [U.S. v. Washington subproceeding 20-01]
Here:
220429 Answer Brief of Appellees Upper Skagit
220429 Answer Brief of Intervenor-PL-Appellee Swinomish
Columbia Law School Panel: “Faith and Native Communities: Fighting for Freedom of – and from – Religion”
36th Annual Coming Together of Peoples Conference, University of Wisconsin Law School March 3rd through the 5th
The 36th Annual Coming Together of Peoples Conference is taking place March 3rd through March 5th. This conference is the longest-running Federal Indian Law conference in the country. The areas of Federal Indian law that this year’s conference encompass a multitude of subjects, cases, and experts, such as: the success of tribes at the United States Supreme Court; the newly amended Oneida gaming compact and its impact on the future of Wisconsin gaming; the current state of ICWA; an Ethics panel, and more. Aurene Martin (UW ‘93), Managing Partner and Founding Member of Spirit Rock Consulting will deliver the keynote address.
The conference has been approved for 11 (1.5EPR) CLE credits in the state of Wisconsin, CLE credits are pending for the state of Minnesota. Please register using this link https://www.eventbrite.com/e/36th-annual-coming-together-of-peoples-conference-tickets-240455598167
Biden’s SCT Nominee is Ketanji Brown Jackson
The only Indian law opinion we can find that Judge Brown Jackson wrote was in Fredericks v. Dept. of the Interior, a dispute over gas royalties at Fort Berthold.
The second Indian law opinion we found after actually making an effort to look is Mackinaw Band v. Jewell, where the court ordered the tribe to exhaust administrative remedies in a federal recognition suit:
Judge Brown Jackson also wrote an opinion in a pro se prisoner FOIA request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Kovalevich v. BIA. Judge Brown Jackson also rejected a facial challenge in Rothe v. Dept. of Defense to Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act that benefits many tribes and tribal businesses. In Sierra Club v. Army Corps, she excused the government from having to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to assess environmental impacts from the approval of a domestic pipeline, a case that recalls the Dakota Access decision, which reached the opposite conclusion.
Judge Brown Jackson clerked for Justice Breyer in the 1999 Term, when Rice v. Cayetano was decision (Breyer went the wrong way on that one).
Judge Brown Jackson also clerked for First Circuit Judge Selya from 1999 to 2000. Judge Selya wrote the opinion in Ninigret Development v. Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Housing Authority, where the court rejected a tribal sovereign immunity defense from a contract dispute.
Louisiana Federal Court Dismisses Civil Rights Suit against Chitimacha by Former Casino CFO
Here are the materials in Spivey v. Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (W.D. La.):
Federal Circuit Allows Osage Headright Owners’ Money Damages Claim for Breach of Trust to Proceed
Here is the opinion in Fletcher v. United States. An excerpt:
Plaintiffs William Fletcher, Tara Damron, Richard Longsinger, and Kathryn Redcorn, individual holders of Osage headrights, filed suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) seeking damages resulting from breach of fiduciary duties relating to royalties from the Osage mineral estate. Fletcher v. United States, 151 Fed. Cl. 487 (2020) (Claims Court Decision). Because the Claims Court incorrectly concluded that the plaintiffs had no standing and had failed to identify a source of money-mandating obligation as required under the Tucker Act, we reverse the dismissal of the complaint. We also vacate the Claims Court’s decision on the availability of a damages accounting and the striking of declarations.
Briefs here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Eagle Bear Inc. v. Blackfeet Indian Nation
Newsy [Allison Herrera]: “Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s Complicated Indian Law Legacy”
Here:
Idle Thoughts about Bingo. . .
Yesterday, Justice Kagan asked about what bingo is:
There seems to be dispute whether this type of bingo by machine is the same as the bingo we know, people in a room calling out numbers.
p. 18, line 25 — p. 19, lines 1-3
In a colloquy with the tribe’s counsel, the Chief Justice also wondered aloud:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What would — what — what would you say it looks like?
p. 22, lines 4-25 — p. 23, lines 1-11
MR. MARTIN: I would say it looks like an electronic bingo machine that has a bingo —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What makes it look like a bingo machine?
(Laughter.)
MR. MARTIN: Well, there’s a — let me
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: There’s a name on it that says bingo?
MR. MARTIN: Well, there’s actually a card and you can switch the cards by pushing a button to change the cards that you’re playing. Now, are there reels and lights that look — that would characterize —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Are there people —
MR. MARTIN: — people would characterize it — yes.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: — calling out numbers and — people, somebody saying, you know, B-12 or —
MR. MARTIN: There — there in fact is part of our operations, Your Honor. My tribe’s operations is live-called bingo and it’s also one of the things the State of Texas —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But that’s something different than the slot — slot machine bingo, right?
MR. MARTIN: It is different than the electronic machines, Your Honor, but they’ve complained about all of it.
The law of these bingo slot machines has effectively been settled for nearly 20 years after the Supreme Court denied cert in a pair of petitions from the United States on this question (which later led to regulations that effectively codified the rulings from the courts below that the government lost):
What is Class II bingo, a Supreme Court Justice might ask? Well, the General Counsel for the National Indian Gaming Commission is there to offer answers:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.