Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial of Relief in Pala Band Disenrollment Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Aguayo v. Jewell.

An excerpt:

This appeal analyzes whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it concluded that, according to tribal law, it had no authority to intervene in a tribal membership dispute, in which more than 150 people were disenrolled from the Pala Band of Mission Indians (Pala Band or Band). We conclude that it did not, and affirm the decision of the district court.

Appellate Briefs:
Doc. 13 – Appellant’s Opening Brief
Doc. 23 – Answering Brief of the Federal Defendants
Doc. 21 – Appellant’s Reply Brief

Lower court materials here

SCOTUSBlog Profile of Ian Gershengorn

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Acting Solicitor General. Here.

Federal Court Issues Order in Little Traverse Reservation Boundaries Case Bifurcating Merits and Remedies Phases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the order in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Snyder (W.D. Mich.):

91. 2016-07-06 Opinion and Order Bifurcating Case and Granting Denying Plf’s MSD

An excerpt:

“‘Only Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries,’ and its intent to do so must be clear.” Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072, 1078–79 (2016) (quoting Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 470 (1984)). Even when a reservation exists and has not been diminished, however, a “long delay in seeking equitable relief . . . [can] evoke the doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, and render inequitable the piecemeal shift in governance [a] suit seeks unilaterally to initiate.” City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 221 (2005); cf. Parker, 136 S. Ct. at 1082 (citing Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 217–221) (“Because petitioners have raised only the single question of diminishment, we express no view about whether equitable considerations of laches and acquiescence may curtail the Tribe’s power to tax the retailers of Pender in light of the Tribe’s century-long absence from the undisputed lands.”).

These two principles frame the dispute this motion presents: May equitable defenses lie in this lawsuit? To best answer this question and organize this case, bifurcation is appropriate. In the first phase, which will address the existence and diminishment of a reservation, equitable defenses cannot lie. If necessary, the Court will revisit the dispute at the second, remedial phase.

Here are the briefs:

Doc. 66 – Tribe’s Memorandum in Support of Combined Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Defenses or Rule 26(b) Motion to Limit Discovery

Doc. 75 – State’s Brief in Opposition to Tribe’s Combined Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Rule 12(F) Motion to Strike Defenses or Rule 26(B) Limit Discovery

Doc. 80 – Tribe’s Combined Reply in Support of Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Alternative Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Defenses and Rule 26(b) Motion to Limit Discovery

Lewis v. Clarke is SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

The petition is here.

Eighth Circuit Affirms DV Recidivist Conviction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Drapeau.

 

 

D.C. Circuit Affirms Interior Decision to Acquire Land into Trust for Alaska Native Tribes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Akiachak Native Community v. Dept. of Interior.

Briefs here.

“Did a Fear of Slave Revolts Drive American Independence?”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

And Indians.

Here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in NLRB, Pauma, and Shinnecock Petitions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order list. 

Impact of Dollar General Affirmance

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Huge win for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians tribal court and most especially for the family of John Doe. The case must now return to the tribal court for a hearing on the merits. Presumably, DG will settle and we won’t hear any more about this case. One guesses, however, that if DG loses in a merits battle, it could AGAIN try the federal courts to see if they will hear another challenge to the tribe’s jurisdiction, perhaps more closely tied to something like punitive damages. Highly unlikely I would guess.

The battle waged at oral argument may be repeated again and again throughout Indian country. The constitutional issues are highly salient to the conservatives remaining on the Court. At least one thing we can thank DG for is making the best case for nonmembers on those constitutional issues.

The next Supreme Court Justice will decide whether tribes can assert civil jurisdiction over nonconsenting nonmembers. Meanwhile, tribal court plaintiffs will continue to cite to the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in DG, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Water Wheel, Merrion, and related cases. 

On a more speculative note, hopefully historians will figure out what was going on for the past six and a half months for all of this to end up in a 4-4 tie. One would have to guess that one or more Justices switched votes in the very recent past. Perhaps the Chief Justice assigned himself the majority after oral argument (he did write Plains Commerce and so has a track record), and struggled mightily to hold a majority for the past several months. Or perhaps Samantha Bee’s satire swayed someone at the last minute. 🙂