Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Eighth Circuit Affirms Attorney Fee Award in Spirit Lake Nation Voting Rights Matter

July 19, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Spirit Lake Nation v. Jaeger.

Briefs:

State Brief

Tribe Brief

Denezpi v. United States — Cert Petition re: CFR Courts as Federal Courts

July 16, 2021July 21, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition and appendix:

Cert Petition

Appendix

Lower court materials here.

Question presented:

Is the Court of Indian Offenses of Ute Mountain Ute Agency a federal agency such that Merle Denezpi’s conviction in that court barred his subsequent prosecution in a United States District Court for a crime arising out of the same incident?

Update:

Federal Opposition Brief

Oklahoma Criminal Appellate Court to Hear Osage Reservation Boundaries Case

July 16, 2021September 19, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are materials so far in Young v. State of Oklahoma:

DCT Stay Order

Osage Nation Amicus Brief

S tate Brief

Young Brief

Update — the appellate court concluded McGirt did not apply and confirmed that the Osage reservation had been disestablished:

OCCA Decision

New York Appellate Division Concludes State Cannot Tax Unstamped Smokes Confiscated During an Illegal Search by Police

July 16, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In the Matter of White v. State of New York Tax Appeals Tribunal (N.Y. A.D.):

530088_pdf

Federal Court Rejects Immunity Defense in Tribal Payday Lending Matter

July 15, 2021July 15, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the relevant materials in Brice v. Stinson (N.D. Cal.):

182 Motion for Summary Judgment

197 Opposition

216 Reply

236 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on defendants’ third affirmative defense; that some defendants are protected by or some claims extinguished by tribal immunity. In their opposition, defendants admit they personally “are not entitled to assert or invoke sovereign immunity as a defense to these claims” but nonetheless argue plaintiffs’ litigation “of these claims against shareholders of entities providing contractual services to those lenders is a significant infringement on the sovereignty of the tribes. . . . .” Dkt. No. 197 at 22. Defendants miss the point. The claims here hinge on the personal conduct of the defendants. While that conduct is based in significant part on the services defendants personally engaged in or approved to be provided to the Tribes, the claims do not impede on the sovereignty of the Tribes where the Tribes are not defendants in this case and no Tribal Entities remain. Absent apposite caselaw or facts showing how this action “interferes with the purpose or operation of a federal policy regarding tribal interests,” tribal immunity is irrelevant to this action.