Here is the summary order in Sun v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Commission:
sun-v-mashantucket-pequot-gaming-commission
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the summary order in Sun v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Commission:
sun-v-mashantucket-pequot-gaming-commission
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the briefs in Eagleman v. Rocky Boys Chippewa Cree Tribal Business Committee:
chippewa-cree-housing-authority-answer-brief
Lower court materials here.
Oral argument video here.
Here (PDF):

Here are the materials in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico (D.N.M.):
60-nm-motion-to-dismiss-count-iv
65-nm-motion-to-modify-pi-order
71-motion-to-dismiss-counts-iii-iv
Prior posts here, here, and here.
Tenth Circuit materials here.
Earlier, the federal district court had held the federal bankruptcy act doesn’t abrogate tribal sovereign immunity.
Here are the materials in In re Greektown Holdings LLC (E.D. Mich. Bkrcy.):
The Court denied cert in:
No news on Tunica-Biloxi Gaming Authority v. Zaunbrecher (15-769), which might be held pending the outcome in Lewis v. Clarke.
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether an assumed tribal custom can survive the extinguishment of aboriginal rights by Congress and undermine conveyances of land that were transferred in fee simple absolute?2. Whether the legal presumption of an “easement by necessity” is protected against contradiction by the parol evidence rule, and whether the relaxation of the rule amounts to a taking of property under the Due Process Clause?3. Whether the judicial elimination of a well-established common law right to private property, absolutely necessary for the enjoyment of property, constitutes a judicial taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Here is “How the Legacy of Native Americans’ Forced Assimilation Lingers Today,” featuring the documentary “Little Dream Catchers.”
Here are the materials in Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation v. United States Corps of Engineers (D.S.D.):
An excerpt:
For the reasons explained above, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against the Corps, remands to the Corps for reconsideration whether the 2009 gully crossings were the type of undertaking that could affect historic properties under 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a) and to complete the Section 106 process if so necessary, and denies all other requests for relief requested by Plaintiffs. Judgement will enter accordingly.
You must be logged in to post a comment.