Fourth Circuit Decides Williams v. Martorello

Here are the briefs:

Opinion here.

Lower court materials here.

Amended Complaint in Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Burgum

Here:

Prior post here.

John P. LaVelle’s Compendium of Exhibits From the Papers of Supreme Court Justices

Here:

John P. LaVelle, Compendium of Exhibits From the Papers of Supreme Court Justices, 88 Mont L. Rev. Online (2025).

Briefs on Whether Federal Trade Commission Act Abrogates Tribal Immunity

Here are the briefs in Berube v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (W.D. Mich.):

1-1 Complaint

6 Motion to Dismiss

16 Opposition

22 Reply

Chukchansi Sues in Federal Court to Enforce Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance

Here is the complaint in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. United Here Local #19 (E.D. Cal.):

Connecticut Federal Court Enjoins Trust Land Acquisition [Mashantucket Pequot]

Here are the materials (so far) in State of Connecticut v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Conn.):

Ninth Circuit Materials in Stillaguamish v. Upper Skagit [U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 17-03]

Here are the briefs:

Stillaguamish Opening Brief

Sauk-Suiattle Amicus Brief

Skallam Tribes Answer Brief

Swinomish Answer Brief

Tulalip Answer Brief

Upper Skagit Answer Brief

Upper Skagit Response to Sauk-Suiattle

Stillaguamish Reply

Lower court materials here.

Muscogee (Creek) Nation SCT Suspends Attorney for One Year Due to Conflicts of Interest

Here is the opinion in In the Matter of Lile.

Stitt v. City of Tulsa Cert Petition

Here:

Question presented:

Whether a state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over an Indian for conduct in Indian country absent a valid congressional grant of authority.

Lower court materials here.

Fletcher and Wenger on Indian Country Health Care Policy for 2S/IQ/TGD Communities

Matthew Fletcher and Dr. Hannah Wenger have posted “Issues of Contemporary Health Policy and Law for Two-Spirit, Indigiqueer, Transgender and Gender-Diverse Communities in Indian Country” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

This policy brief asks a hypothetical question in a political environment in which the U.S. federal government and many states disfavor the delivery of gender-affirming medical care (GAMC) to 2S/IQ/TGD persons, even to the point of criminalizing such care. It further assumes that a tribal nation is willing and capable of delivering GAMC. The answer to the hypothetical question depends on many factors, including (1) whether the state law is authorized by an Act of Congress such as Public Law 280, (2) whether the state law is a criminal law or a civil-regulatory law, and (3) whether the patient or health care professional is a tribal citizen, a nonmember Indian person, or a non-Indian person. The answer here also assumes that the relevant state law does affirmatively criminalize the provision of GAMC and, further, that federal law prohibits the use of federal money by tribal nations to provide GAMC.