Several Indian law cert petitions are set for discussion today at the Supreme Court’s conference (which is their fancy way of saying they’re meeting as a group of 9 to discuss pending cases; where they decide whether or not to accept a cert petition). Here’s a list:
Grand River Six Nations Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton
Several of the McGirt-related petitions
The fun keeps going next week:
Klickitat County v. Yakama Nation Cert Petition
And the week after that:
Here. An excerpt describing the holding:
This appeal marks the latest chapter in a long-running contract dispute between the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (the Tribe) and Lynn Becker, a non-Indian. The contract concerned Becker’s work marketing and developing the Tribe’s mineral resources on the Ute reservation. Almost seven years ago, Becker sued the Tribe in Utah state court for allegedly breaching the contract by failing to pay him a percentage of certain revenue the Tribe received from its mineral holdings. Later, the Tribe filed this lawsuit, challenging the state court’s subject matter jurisdiction under federal law. The district court denied the Tribe’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the state-court proceedings, and the Tribe appeals.
We reverse and hold that the Tribe is entitled to injunctive relief. The district court’s factual findings establish that Becker’s state-court claims arose on the reservation because no substantial part of the conduct supporting them occurred elsewhere. And because the claims arose on the reservation, the state court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction absent congressional authorization.
Briefs here.
Here is the complaint in Yakama Nation Tribal Council v. Sheridan Vineyard (E.D. Wash.):
Here:
Lower court materials here.
The dispute involves waters somewhere in . . . here:
Answer Briefs here:
Here are the relevant materials in United States v. Portillo (W.D. Okla.):
Highly recommended!
The University of Wisconsin Law School invites applications for its William H. Hastie Fellowship Program. For over 40 years, the Hastie Fellowship has provided aspiring scholars an outstanding opportunity to prepare for a career in law teaching. Hastie Fellows have succeeded at securing tenure-track positions at law schools throughout the country, including Columbia, UCLA, Indiana, Colorado, ASU, Texas A&M, Ohio State, UNC, Washington & Lee, UC Irvine, and USC. The Fellowship reflects a commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and especially encourages applications from candidates of color and other underrepresented communities in the legal academy. Hastie Fellows devote the majority of their time to their own research agenda, researching and writing scholarly articles with support from a faculty advisor and the Hastie Fellowship Committee. Fellows also have the option of teaching a course or seminar during the program. The Hastie Fellowship Program encourages scholarship in the full range of law studies. Wisconsin has a particularly strong tradition supporting interdisciplinary work.
For further information, please visit https://law.wisc.edu/grad/hastie/index.html. Applications are due February 1, 2021.
Prior Native Hastie fellows now teaching in law schools (clockwise from upper left, Stacy Leeds, Richard Monette, and Mike Oeser).
Here are the materials in State v. Shopbell (Wash. Super. Ct.):
7. CrR 8.3(b) Motion to Dismiss for Governmental Misconduct
11. Memo In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Bad Faith
13. CrR 8.3(c) Motion to Dismiss
29. Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Suppress Evidence and or Dismiss
30. Reply in Support of Motions to Dismiss
38. Supplemental Reply in Support of Motions to Dismiss
42. Motion for Bill of Particulars
46. Response to Motion for Bill of Particulars
52. Joint Reply In Support of Motion for Bill of Particulars
63. Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CrR 8.3(c)
66. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss and Renewed Motion to Dismiss per CrR 8.3
68. Defendants’ Supplemental Motion to Dismiss
69. Response to Pretrial Dismissal Motions
70. Reply on Pretrial Dismissal Motions
There was no written ruling, but from the bench the Judge explained:
“My decision is consistent with the heart of the Treaty & Rafeedie Consent Decree, preserving Treaty rights that were gained many years ago. This court shouldn’t be involved in those issues.”
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.