Here is the oral argument audio (Ryan Mills for Sault Tribe).
Briefs:
Details on the consent decree here.
Sault Tribe Challenge to 1836 Treaty Consent Decree Heard in Sixth Circuit
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland Cert Petition [all cert stage briefs]
Here:
Questions presented:
The Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (“MILCSA”) established a Self-Sufficiency Fund for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians to receive judgment funds that settled claims against the United States for the unconscionable taking of tribal lands. The statute, which codified a negotiated agreement between the Tribe and the United States, gave the Tribe’s Board of Directors exclusive authority over the Self-Sufficiency Fund, including determinations about the proper use of Fund capital and interest. The broad purposes for which the Tribe may expend Fund interest under MILCSA include the “enhancement of tribal lands.” §108(c)(5). And MILCSA requires the Secretary of the Interior to hold in trust “[a]ny lands” acquired with Fund interest. §108(f). The questions presented are:
- Whether Congress delegated to the Department of the Interior under MILCSA the authority to reject a mandatory trust submission based on the agency’s own view about whether the purchase of land satisfied §108(c), notwithstanding the statutory command that “[a]ny lands acquired using amounts from interest or other income of the [Tribe’s] Self-Sufficiency Fund shall be held in trust by the Secretary [of the Interior] for the benefit of the tribe.” §108(f).
- Whether “enhancement of tribal lands” in §108(c)(5) of MILCSA includes a land acquisition that adds to or augments the size of the Tribe’s total landholdings.
Lower court materials here.
Additional briefs:
Tenth Circuit Holds Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Wiley is Moot
Brookings Report: “The impact of fentanyl on American Indian and Alaskan Native communities”
Oil and Gas Company Sues BLM over Wind River Lease
Ho-Chunk Inc. Cert Petition in Tax Dispute with Nebraska
Here is the petition in HCI Distribution Inc. v. Hilgers:
Questions presented:
I. Under this Court’s decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), may a state directly regulate commerce between tribal economic development entities on the tribe’s own reservation lands without a showing of exceptional circumstances?
II. In conducting the balancing test under White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), may a court discount a tribe’s interests in self-determination and self-sufficiency based upon the court’s view of the significance of the tribe’s economic development activities?
III. Did the Eighth Circuit’s modification of the District Court’s injunction effectively rewrite Nebraska’s escrow and bond statutes, substituting the court’s decision for that of the state legislature, in violation of the standards set forth in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006) and other precedents of this Court?
Lower court materials here.
Burt Lake Brings Mandamus Action Against Interior Officials
Here is the petition in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
Most recent post here.
St. Regis Mohawk Sues IHS over Declination of Tribe Offer to Assume Sewage, Wastewater, and Sanitation Services
Here is the complaint in St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. United States (N.D.N.Y.):
Utah v. United States Cert Stage Materials
ALI-CLE on “Business on Native Lands: Tribal Jurisdiction over Non-Member Enterprises” @ Dec. 11, Noon
Here.
Business on Native Lands: Tribal Jurisdiction Over Non-Member Enterprises
December 11 | 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. ET
The coupon code FLETCHWEB will bring the price from $199 to $29.
Why You Should Attend
The scope of tribal jurisdiction over non-member business activities is a pivotal issue in contemporary law, as federal and state courts continue to define the limits of tribal authority. This webcast examines recent case law developments that may influence the regulatory and adjudicative authority of tribes over non-member enterprises.
If you do business with or on Indian Country, join us to explore how these rulings affect tribal sovereignty, economic development, and the relationships between tribal, federal, and state governments.
What You Will Learn
Whether you represent tribes, businesses, or government entities, this program offers essential guidance on this vital and developing area of law, including:
The foundational legal principles governing tribal jurisdiction over non-member business activities.
Analysis of recent federal and state court opinions shaping tribal authority.
Practical implications for businesses operating on tribal lands or engaging with tribal governments.
The interplay between tribal sovereignty and regulatory frameworks in non-tribal jurisdictions.
Attendees will be equipped with the tools to address complex jurisdictional questions confidently and effectively, ensuring compliance and fostering constructive relationships between tribes and non-member businesses.
Register today! Questions submitted during the program will be answered live by the faculty and all registrants will receive a set of downloadable course materials to accompany the program.
Who Should Attend
This course is ideal for attorneys practicing in areas intersecting with Native American law, particularly those involved in commercial litigation, land use, regulatory compliance, or business operations in Indian Country. It is also highly valuable for tribal legal counsel, public officials, and policymakers navigating the challenges of tribal jurisdiction. Educators seeking to deepen their understanding of these critical legal issues will also benefit greatly.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.