Native America Calling Show on Oliphant

Audio archived here.

Materials in Seminole Tribe Contract Breach suit against Energy Company

Here are the materials so far in Evans Energy Partners LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida Inc. (M.D. Fla.):

1 Complaint

1-2 Tribal Court Complaint

1-3 Tribal Court Final Judgment

1-5 AAA Opinion and Order

12 Motion to Dismiss

Update (9/20/21):

25 Response

26 Tribe Reply

29 Surreply

Materials in Buena Vista Rancheria Tax Suit against Amador County

Here are the materials so far in Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. Amador County (E.D. Cal.):

5 Amended Complaint

9 Motion to Dismiss 12b1

10 Motion to Dismiss Forum Non Convenienz

11 Motion to Dismiss 12b6

Prior post here.

Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Background Materials

Here are the merits briefs:

Brief of Alaska Native Village Corporation Association Inc.

Brief of the United States

Brief of the Confederated Chehalis Tribes

Brief of the Ute Tribe

United States Reply

Alaska Native Village Corporation Association Reply

Chehalis Letter

Post-Argument Letters:

2021.04.23 Chehalis Letter to USSC Clerk of the Court

2021-4-22 ANCs response letter

Confederated Tribes Letter Re Oral Argument Correction 4 20 21 [Ute Tribe/Patterson firm]

US Letter 20-543 20-544

Amicus Briefs Supporting Petitioners:

Amicus Brief of Alaska Congressional Delegation

Amicus Brief of Assn of Alaska Housing Authorities

Amicus Brief of Cook Inlet Region Inc.

Amicus Brief of the Alaska Federation of Natives

Amicus Brief of the State of Alaska

Amicus Briefs Supporting Respondents:

Amicus Brief of Academics

Amicus Brief of Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria

Amicus Brief of Raul Grijalva

Amicus Brief of the States

Amicus Brief of Tribal Organizations

Cert Stage Briefs

Mnuchin v Chehalis Cert Petition

Alaska Native Corps Cert Petition

Members of Congress Amicus Brief

State of Alaska Amicus Brief

Chehalis Brief in Opposition

Ute Tribe BIO

Cheyenne River Sioux BIO

ANVCA Reply

Federal Petitioner’s Reply

D.C. Circuit materials:

Opinion

Chehalis et al Brief

Navajo et al Brief

NCAI Brief

ANVCA Brief

US Brief

Alaska Federation of Natives Amicus Brief

Cook Inlet Region Amicus Brief

Chehalis et al Reply

Navajo et al Reply

District Court materials:

1 Complaint

3 Complaint

4 Motion for TRO

5 Motion for TRO

21 US Brief

23 Ahtna Amicus Brief

25 Gila River Amicus Brief

30 Chehalis Reply

36 DCT Order

76-2 CRST MSJ

77 Chehalis MSJ

78-1 Alaska Corps MSJ

79-1 Mnuchin MSJ

81 AFN Brief

82 NCAI Amicus Brief

97 DCT Order

99 Chelahis Motion for Stay Pending Appeal

102 Calista Response

103 Federal Response

104 ANC Response

105 Ahtna Response

106 Chehalis Reply

107 DCT Order on Stay

WaPo: “The Jeep Cherokee is not a tribute to Indians. Change the name.”

By Angela Riley, Sonia Katyal, and Rachel Lim, here.

See also, the commentary in the Detroit Free Press featuring Stacy Leeds et al.

Sho-Ban Tribes Bring CERCLA Complaint against Polluter

Here is the complaint in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. P4 Production LLC (D. Idaho):

2 Complaint

Kialegee Tribal Town Sues Interior (again)

Here is the complaint, currently captioned Kialegee Tribal Town v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

Prior case, dismissed for lack of ripeness, here.

Grant Christensen on Predicting Supreme Court Behavior in Indian Law Cases

Grant Christensen has published “Predicting Supreme Court Behavior in Indian Law Cases” in the Michigan Journal Race & Law. Here is the abstract:

This piece builds upon Matthew Fletcher’s call for additional empirical work in Indian law by creating a new dataset of Indian law opinions. The piece takes every Indian law case decided by the Supreme Court from the beginning of the Warren Court until the end of the 2019-2020 term. The scholarship first produces an Indian law scorecard that measures how often each Justice voted for the “pro- Indian” outcome. It then compares those results to the Justice’s political ideology to suggest that while there is a general trend that a more “liberal” Justice is more likely to favor the pro-Indian interest, that trend is generally weak with considerable variance from Justice to Justice. Finally, the article then creates a logistic regression model in order to try to predict whether a pro-Indian outcome is likely to prevail at the Court. It finds six potential variables to be statistically significant. It uses quantitative analysis to prove that the Indian interest is more likely to prevail when the Tribe is the appellant, when the issue is framed as a jurisdictional contest, and when the case arises from certain regions of the country. It suggests that Indian law advocates may use these insights to help influence litigation strategies in the future.

Recommended, not only because MJRL is a premier journal.

Seneca County v. Cayuga Indian Nation Cert Petition

Here:

2021-02-17 Seneca County Petition Final

Lower court materials here.

Question presented:

This Court has twice granted certiorari to decide whether tribal sovereign immunity bars lawsuits concerning rights to property that a tribe acquires on the open market. See Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, 138 S.Ct. 1649 (2018); Madison Cty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 562 U.S. 960 (2010) (mem.). Both times, however, subsequent developments prevented the Court from definitively answering the question. This case presents an opportunity to definitively answer that important and recurring question. In the decision below, the Second Circuit doubled down on the holding that this Court granted certiorari to review in Madison County, and again robbed this Court’s decision in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005), of practical effect by holding that if an Indian tribe purchases land on the open market and refuses to pay property taxes, there is nothing a local jurisdiction can do about it. That decision cannot be reconciled with Sherrill, and it effectively grants tribes a super immunity by rejecting the “uniform authority in support of the view that” the “immovable property” exception would preclude any sovereign’s efforts to invoke sovereign immunity in these circumstances. Upper Skagit, 138 S.Ct. at 1657 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
The question presented is:
Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars local tax authorities from collecting lawfully imposed property taxes by foreclosing on real property that a tribe has acquired on the open market.

Sixth Circuit Enforces Tribal Sovereign Lending Arbitration Clause

Here is the opinion in Swiger v. Rosette.

Briefs here.