Matthew L.M. Fletcher

American Indian tribes that enter the cannabis industry confront a multi-sovereign tax system that lacks certainty and horizontal equity. The complex interaction of state legalization and taxation of cannabis, federal tax law, the status of tribes as both governments and business enterprises, and the legal and tax landscape in Indian country can give tribes tax advantages and disadvantages compared to off-reservation cannabis dispensaries. This article analyzes these tax issues, examines them in the context of prior challenges posed by Indian gaming, and suggests reforms that address the tax inequities that can result from cannabis sales on Indian reservations.

Update in Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Dept. of the Interior

December 7, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are updated materials in Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

34 DCt Order on Supplementing Admin Record

37 Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Motion for Reconsideration

38 Opposition

39 Reply

40 DCT Order Denying Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Motion

Prior post here.

UNLV Webinar on the Origins of IGRA

December 6, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

IGRA Webinar Flyer – Boyd

Eighth Circuit Holds OSHA Does Not Apply to Red Lake Treaty Fishing Activities

December 4, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Scalia v. Red Lake Nation Fisheries Inc.:

CA8 Opinion

Briefs here.

Yakama Nation Cert Petition in Dispute with Yakima County over Criminal Jurisdiction

December 4, 2020March 16, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County:

Yakama Nation Cert Petition

Question presented:

The United States reassumed Pub. L. 83-280 criminal jurisdiction over crimes involving Indians within the Yakama Reservation from the State of Washington pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1323, on April 19, 2016. Years later, federal officials re-interpreted the scope of that federal reassumption to allow the State of Washington to once again exercise criminal jurisdiction over Indians within the Yakama Reservation any time a non-Indian is involved in the crime.The question presented is:
Can the United States change the scope of its reassumption of Pub. L. 83-280 jurisdiction in Indian Country years after the reassumption became effective under 25 U.S.C. § 1323 without the Yakama Nation’s prior consent required by 25 U.S.C. § 1326?

Lower court materials here.

Update (3/4/21):

Brief in Opposition

Update (3/16/21):

Yakama Reply