Audio archived here.
Native America Calling Show on Oliphant
Audio archived here.
Audio archived here.
Here are the materials so far in Evans Energy Partners LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida Inc. (M.D. Fla.):
1-3 Tribal Court Final Judgment
Update (9/20/21):
Here are the materials so far in Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. Amador County (E.D. Cal.):
10 Motion to Dismiss Forum Non Convenienz
Prior post here.
Here are the merits briefs:
Brief of Alaska Native Village Corporation Association Inc.
Brief of the Confederated Chehalis Tribes
Alaska Native Village Corporation Association Reply
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]
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 Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria
Amicus Brief of Tribal Organizations
Cert Stage Briefs
Mnuchin v Chehalis Cert Petition
Alaska Native Corps Cert Petition
Members of Congress Amicus Brief
D.C. Circuit materials:
Alaska Federation of Natives Amicus Brief
Cook Inlet Region Amicus Brief
District Court materials:
By Angela Riley, Sonia Katyal, and Rachel Lim, here.
See also, the commentary in the Detroit Free Press featuring Stacy Leeds et al.
Here is the complaint in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. P4 Production LLC (D. Idaho):
Here is the complaint, currently captioned Kialegee Tribal Town v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):
Prior case, dismissed for lack of ripeness, here.
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.
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.
Here is the opinion in Swiger v. Rosette.
Briefs here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.