Here is the petition in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of the Interior:
Question presented:
Whether the Secretary can acquire land in trust on behalf of Indians whose federal supervision was terminated by Congress.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of the Interior:
Question presented:
Whether the Secretary can acquire land in trust on behalf of Indians whose federal supervision was terminated by Congress.
Lower court materials here.

Here is the petition in Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Bonta:
Questions presented:
1. Whether an Indian tribe incorporated by federal charter under section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. § 5124) is an “Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior” authorized to bring suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1362.
2. Whether the Indian Trader Statutes (25 U.S.C. §§ 261-263) or the Bracker balancing test (see White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980)) preempts the State of California’s regulation of intertribal cigarette sales, where an Indian tribe sells tribally manufactured cigarettes to Indian tribal buyers on their home reservations.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Frank Pommersheim asked us to post his keynote speech from this year’s NAICJA conference, “An Emeritus Prose Podcast: The Pandemic Checkpoints of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe: A Teaching Essay.”
Here it is:
The Pandemic Checkpoints of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
An excerpt:
In the Spring of 2020, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (CRST) began implementing a series of limited vehicle checkpoints within the boundaries of the reservation as part of its comprehensive public health response1 to limit the spread of COVID-19. One of the checkpoints was located on a state highway running through the Reservation. There was an immediate uproar in South Dakota. Many people, both Native and non-Native, contacted me and asked, ‘Frank, can the Tribe really do this?’ My answer was ‘yes.’
As the questions about this Tribal public health initiative became increasingly heated, the merits of the health policy were increasingly subsumed in political rhetoric concerning the ‘rights’ of non-Natives and the authority of the state to quash the Tribe’s efforts. The calls kept coming. My answer of ‘yes’ remained the same. Yet the supporting legal analysis was not so easily summarized. No (federal) statute or Supreme Court case unequivocally said yes or no. The answer of ‘yes’ required a careful exegesis of both Supreme Court precedent and the law of the CRST.

Here are the materials in Grossman v. City of El Paso:
Here are the materials so far in Hooper v. City of Tulsa (N.D. Okla.):
Here are the new materials in Bartell Ranch LLC v. McCullough (D. Nev.):
117 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration
Â

Here are the materials in Platform 10 LLC v. Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (D. Nev.):
14 Motion for Default Judgment
Â


The following screenshots come from the Smithsonian’s collection of issues of “Indians at Work.”












You must be logged in to post a comment.