Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ugh, This Stupid Garbage Again

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are materials in State of Oklahoma ex rel. Stitt v. City of Tulsa (Okla. S. Ct.):

2025-08-20. Gov Stitt’s App for Orig Jurisdiction & Pet for Writ of Prohibition & Inj Relief.pdfDownload
Gov. Stitt Brief in Support of App for Original Jurisdiction 08-21-2025.pdfDownload

Grant Christensen on the Right to Protest in Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Grant Christensen has published “The Right to Protest in Indian Country” in the Columbia Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

From April 2016 until February 2017, thousands of people gathered along the Cannonball River on the border of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation to protest the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. In response, state officials tried to close down roads leading to the Reservation, considered legislation that would immunize drivers who struck protesters with vehicles, and arrested hundreds of peaceful demonstrators. The #NoDAPL protests built upon a legacy of resistance by Indigenous communities against the actions of the United States. While the history of Indigenous resistance predates the nation’s founding, the power to police protest activities on tribal lands has changed markedly.

This Symposium Piece considers the right to protest in Indian country. It confronts the framework that apportions regulatory and adjudicatory power over protest activity occurring on tribal land and suggests that such regulation ought to be left entirely to the tribal sovereign. Alternatively, it argues that state regulation of protest activity in Indian country is an infringement on tribal governments’ right to make their own laws or is otherwise preempted by overwhelming tribal and federal interests. This Piece further recognizes that while the United States could impose regulations on protest activity, there are strong prudential factors that suggest it should defer regulation to the tribal sovereign. By subjecting the right to protest in Indian country solely to regulations imposed by tribal government, the United States would be respecting tribal sovereignty.

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Rules in Favor of Sho-Ban Tribes in Reservation Land Exchange Challenge

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Dept. of the Interior.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Refuses to Enforce Land Partition Agreement between BIA and Estate of Crow Citizen

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Halverson v. Burgum.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Minnesota Federal Court Dismisses Suit Against Tribal Gaming Executives

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in North Metro Harness Initiative LLC v. Beattie (D. Minn.):

1 Complaint

29 Prairie Island Motion to Dismiss

39 Mille Lacs Motion to Dismiss

50 State Amicus Brief

62 Plaintiffs Opposition

68 Tribes Reply

85 DCT Order

89 Motion for Rule 59(e) Relief

93 Tribes Opposition

100 DCT Order 59(e) Motion

Ninth Circuit Reaffirms Katie John Trilogy and Affirms Injunction against State of Alaska

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. State of Alaska:

24-2251Download

Briefs here.

D.C. Circuit Affirms Rejection of Crow Allottees Challenge to Water Rights Settlement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Crow v. Dept. of the Interior.

Briefs here.

Stanford Law Review Symposium: Promises of Sovereignty

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Mantle
Symposium – 2025 – Promises of Sovereignty Tribal Sovereignty, Justice Gorsuch, and the Letter of the Law by  Desmond Mantle  on  July 23, 2025 I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. An elephant’s faithful, one hundred percent!  —Dr. Seuss, Horton Hatches the Egg Introduction This Comment seeks to defend Justice Neil Gorsuch’s approach to statutory interpretation, arguing against pragmatist efforts to reduce the Supreme Court’s reliance on textualism and against efforts by fellow self-proclaimed textualists…Volume 77 (2024-2025)
Kinsbury
Symposium – 2025 – Promises of Sovereignty What We Talk About When We Talk About (Indian) Sovereignty: Montana and the Application of General Statutes to Tribes by  Annelisa Kingsbury Lee  on  July 23, 2025 Montana v. US is a case about tribal civil jurisdiction. Yet it has had a second life in a surprising context: federal statutes of general applicability that do not mention tribes. This Comment explores the circuit split on these silent statutes and shows that Montana is the doctrinal lynchpin for every court that has considered…Volume 77 (2024-2025)
Cui
Symposium – 2025 – Promises of Sovereignty Separation-of-Powers Formalism and Federal Indian Law: The Question of Executive Order Reservations by  Isaac Cui  on  July 23, 2025 Introduction The creation of Indian reservations largely coincided with and was facilitated by the development of presidential authority to withdraw public lands for Indian purposes. Of the roughly 42.8 million acres of total tribal trust lands in 1951, slightly over 23 million were set aside through executive order. That number far dwarfs any other method…Volume 77 (2024-2025)
Schilfgaarde
Symposium – 2025 – Promises of Sovereignty Tribal Revestiture by  Lauren van Schilfgaarde  on  July 23, 2025 I. Implicit Divestiture Presumes Cultural Incompatibility Tribes have a precarious political posture in relation to the United States. Tribes are distinctly sovereign and extra-constitutional, but are also without meaningful external infrastructure to define and protect their legal status in relation to the United States. That is, the U.S. recognizes Tribes as “domestic dependent nations,” but…Volume 77 (2024-2025)
Riley
Symposium – 2025 – Promises of Sovereignty Indigenous Rights to Culture: What’s Next? by  Angela R. Riley  on  July 23, 2025 Introduction For more than two centuries, the United States has maintained—in law and in practice—a colonial system designed to destroy Indigenous peoples’ culture. My work has explored this phenomenon from a property lens, explaining how attacks on Indigenous cultures traverse and encompass all categories of property, including real, tangible, and intangible. From a property perspective,…Volume 77 (2024-2025)
Mills
Symposium – 2025 – Promises of Sovereignty The Supreme Court’s Old Habits in a New Era? Native Nations, Statehood, and an Indigenous-led Future for Natural Resources by  Monte Mills  on  July 23, 2025 Introduction After rising from the depths of eras in which the United States intended to eliminate Native Nations, tribal sovereignty remains ascendant. With respect to natural resources, the governance of Native Nations has expanded to more fully occupy the legal space reserved in treaties with the United States. Across the country, Native Nations have built…Volume 77 (2024-2025)
Lewerenz
Symposium – 2025 – Promises of Sovereignty Federal Indian Law in a Time of Judicial Self-Aggrandizement by  Dan Lewerenz  on  July 23, 2025 Introduction The Supreme Court is accumulating power. Call it “concentrating power in the court,” a “judicial power grab,” or (as a growing number of scholars are calling it) “judicial aggrandizement” or “judicial self-aggrandizement.” Each of these ideas describes a Supreme Court that is upsetting accepted notions of the separation of powers—accumulating power for itself, often…Volume 77 (2024-2025)
Fletcher
Symposium – 2025 – Promises of Sovereignty Against Judicial Generalists by  Matthew L.M. Fletcher  on  July 23, 2025 There is something irritatingly wrong with Indian law practice at the Supreme Court. Oral argument at the Supreme Court is a bitterly unpleasant affair for Indigenous people and tribal advocates for a lengthy variety of reasons. It is canonical that tribal advocates must attempt to avoid Supreme Court review; the strategic thinking is that the…Volume 77 (2024-2025)
Davis
Symposium – 2025 – Promises of Sovereignty Can the Roberts Court Find Federal Indian Law? by  Seth Davis  on  July 23, 2025 Introduction Imagine the lost world of “lawfinding.” In that world, there was a general common law for federal judges to find. And in that world, each statute had a “single, best meaning” for judges to unearth with the traditional tools of statutory interpretation. Of course, we are not going back to that world. Too much…Volume 77 (2024-2025)

Sad News: Terrence Stamp Walks On

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

One of my favorite actors. Loved him in The Limey with Luis Guzman. Would have made a kick-ass Sith (if he wasn’t cast as a sad little chancellor).

Kneel before Zod:

This Guardian article is amazing.

Fletcher: Against Generalist Judges

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Please check out Against Generalist Judges on SSRN (also available on the Stanford Law Review website).

Here is the “abstract”:

This essay offers yet another proposal for Supreme Court reform. My proposal is rooted in a preference for subject matter expertise in judging. Drawing from arbitration practice, I propose a system in which the parties to federal court litigation — from federal district court all the way to the Supreme Court — negotiate and choose judges from a pool of subject matter experts. The pool would consist of Article III judges who develop subject matter expertise in a given field, say, intellectual property or federal Indian law, and who are available to hear cases over which they are experts, not generalists. Although seemingly radical, there are already formal and informal models for this structure, namely the Federal Circuit, the D.C. Circuit, state courts of criminal appeals, tribal courts, and of course arbitration itself.

Yes, old man shaking fist at cloud. That’s me.