Here is the opinion in Alaska Oil and Gas Assn. v. Jewell.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Justice Thomas Asked Questions in Oral Argument Today
Here.
NYU Law Review Seeking Submissions from Indian Law Scholars
A message from NYU Law Review editor Raymond Fadel…
NYU Law Review is seeking submissions from Indian law scholars.
- Online Series on Dollar General.
Our Online Department has voted to publish an online feature series spotlighting the Dollar General case, and its legal and policy implications. Amongst other things, we are currently looking for pieces that discuss the case itself, its legal background and importance, and its implications for Indian and non-Indian country alike—particularly Indigenous women’s issues and its insights into women’s issues in general.
To facilitate timely debate, we plan on publishing the spotlight series shortly after the Dollar General case is decided. We encourage you to submit your Essays and Comments within two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision, but of course, you are welcome to send your pieces for consideration as soon as you have them.
Online submissions have a maximum word limit of 10,000 words and may be submitted directly to our Senior Online Editor, Agne Jomantaite, at aj785@nyu.edu or via Scholastica. More information on our submission policy can be found on our website, www.nyulawreview.org.
- Print Articles.
As always, our Articles Department is seeking submissions covering diverse subject-matters, especially including general issues in Indian law that would be accessible to a generalist audience. Article submissions must have a minimum of 10,000 words and be submitted on Scholastica. In addition to submission on Scholastica, you may also forward any submission directly to our Senior Articles Editor, Tyler Domino, at tjd266@nyu.edu. The Department is accepting unsolicited articles through the end of March, 2016.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Akini v. State of Hawai’i
Indian Trust Breach Claim over Estate in Probate Deferred until Conclusion of Admin. Proceedings
Here are the materials in Fredericks v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Colorado Law School Dean Finalists
A few of the names will be familiar to Turtle Talk readers.
Here:
University of Colorado Boulder Provost Russell L. Moore today announced four finalists for the position of dean of Colorado Law.
The finalists for the position are S. James Anaya, who is a Regents’ Professor and James J. Lenoir Professor of Human Rights Law and Policy at the University of Arizona; Mary Anne Bobinski, professor at the Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver; Laura E. Gómez, professor at the UCLA School of Law; and Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Charles and Marion J. Kierscht Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law.
“The opportunity to lead one of the most distinctive and innovative law schools in the nation attracted an amazing pool of exceptional candidates, and we appreciate the tremendous interest from applicants,” said Lori Bergen, chair of the search committee and founding dean of the College of Media, Communication and Information. “The search committee is honored to present these four finalists whose experience, perspectives and vision make them outstanding candidates to lead Colorado Law as the next dean.”
Manitoba Path to Reconciliation Act
Bill text here.
Tenth Circuit Rejects Individual Water Rights in Nambé-Pojoaque-Tesuque Basin General Stream Adjudication
Here are the materials in State of New Mexico v. United States:
Briefs:
Northern Arapaho Tribe Sues BIA
Seminole Tribe v. Stranburg Cert Petition
Here:
Seminole Tribe v. Stranburg Cert Petition
Question presented:
Florida imposes a tax on gross receipts from utility services that are delivered to retail customers. Under express statutory authority, utility providers may separately itemize this utility tax on a customer’s bill and add it to the total charge for utility services. If the utility provider does so, the customer is legally required to remit the tax to the utility provider, which then transfers the payment to the State. Here, petitioner is a federally recognized Indian tribe that has purchased utility services delivered to tribal reservations. Petitioner’s utility providers have exercised their statutory right to separately itemize the utility tax when billing the Tribe for such services.
The question presented is:
When a utility provider exercises a state-law right to expressly pass on a utility tax to a federally recognized Indian tribe for utility services delivered to the tribe’s reservations and the tribe is therefore legally obligated to pay the tax, is the tax an impermissible
direct tax on the tribe?
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.