Here:
Other briefs TK.
Lower court materials here and here.
Criminal
Tenth Circuit to Review Indian Status Cases En Banc
Tenth Circuit Affirms Drug Conviction Arising from Tribal Court Issued Search Warrant
New Scholarship on Indian Status Cases in North Carolina
Daniel G. Sullivan has published “When You’re Just Not “Indian” Enough: The Erosion of Tribal Sovereignty in State v. Nobles and the Case for Deference to Tribes on Questions of Indian Status” in the North Carolina Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
Under the Major Crimes Act, Tribes and the federal government have exclusive jurisdiction over certain “major crimes” committed by an “Indian” in “Indian Country.” In 2012, George Nobles—a “First Descendant” of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians—was arrested for robbery and murder on the tribal trust lands of the Eastern Band. Defined by Cherokee law, First Descendants have at least one parent who is a tribal member but are themselves one generation short of the Tribe’s blood quantum requirement for membership. At the time of Nobles’s arrest, First Descendants were recognized by the Eastern Band as “Indian” under Cherokee common and statutory law. Thus, under the Major Crimes Act, only the Eastern Band or the federal government should have been able to prosecute Nobles. Both crimes were “major,” both took place in Indian Country, and Nobles—as a First Descendant—was Indian.
But in State v. Nobles, the Supreme Court of North Carolina concluded that Nobles was just not Indian enough and authorized state jurisdiction. And in doing so, the court overrode a determination that was the Tribe’s to make. State v. Nobles contradicts fundamental precepts of federal Indian law and strikes at the sovereignty of the Eastern Band and similarly-situated Tribes. Where Indian status refers to the political relationship between an individual and a particular Tribe, that Tribe must have the final word on questions of Indian status. Part I of this Comment introduces State v. Nobles and explores Indian Country jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act. Part II sets forth three principles of federal Indian law against which the facts of Nobles must be viewed and argues that these principles demand deference to Tribes on Indian status. Part III uses these principles to discuss the errors in Nobles. Lastly, Part IV argues that deference to Tribes on Indian status is necessary for robust tribal sovereignty and proposes a more cabined use of the “Rogers test” for Indian status consistent with that understanding.
Tenth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Indian Status in Indian Country Crimes Case
Oklahoma Federal Court Dismisses Tulsa Detention Officer’s ICRA Habeas Petition after Creek Nation Drops Criminal Charges
Here are the materials in Douglas v. Wisner (E.D. Okla.):
43 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss
43-1 Exhibit Request & Order of Dismissal of Charges
Jordan Gross on White Collar Crime in Indian Country
Jordan Gross has published “White-Collar Crime in Indian Country: Teaching and Researching Familiar Issues in a Unique Context” in the Stetson Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
Some locations within Indian Country make up the most dangerous places in the United States. Remoteness, extreme poverty, and complex federal jurisdictional rules, combined with a paucity of law enforcement resources, have given some Indian reservations reputations as safe havens for lawlessness and organized crime. Crime in Indian Country is often associated with violent offenses, drug running, and human trafficking. Indian Country faces a less well known, but equally pernicious threat from white-collar crime. The federal government directs billions of dollars to Indian Country every year to fund Tribal projects, grants, and contracts. Indian Tribes operate and have interests in many highly profitable gaming operations and resource extraction industries. The vast sums of money flowing through these businesses are an attractive target for fraudsters and opportunists. And the same circumstances that contribute to high rates of violent crime in some parts of Indian Country create fertile conditions for white-collar crime, particularly federal program fraud, embezzlement, public corruption, money laundering, and tax evasion. These crimes cause more than pecuniary losses in Indian Country: monies lost to fraud and corruption in this context are often earmarked for public services and desperately needed infrastructure for residents of Indian Country, thus undermining the ability of Tribal governments to address acute needs in some of the most underserved and poverty-stricken communities in the United States. The jurisdictional and legal contexts in which crime in Indian Country is investigated and prosecuted in the United States are sui generis and unstable. Yet criminal justice issues as they impact residents of Indian Country as well as the self-determination and sovereignty interests of Tribes are overlooked and underexamined in legal education and discourse. This is especially true of white-collar crime in Indian Country, a topic that receives virtually no attention in legal scholarly publications and textbooks. This Article is directed at this void in the academic and pedagogical literature. Its goal is to provide white-collar crime teachers and researchers with background, resources, and encouragement to add Indian Country issues and topics to their repertoire.
Tenth Circuit Moots ICRA Habeas Petition Styled as a Removal from Tribal Court to Federal Court, with a Warning About Frivolous Filings
Oklahoma Federal Judge Accepts Creek Nation-City of Tulsa Settlement Stipulation, Denies Gov. Stitt Motion to Intervene
Here are new materials in Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. City of Tulsa (N.D. Okla.):
153 DCT Order Denying Criminal Defendants Motion to Intervene
154 DCT Order Denying Creek Freedmen Motion to Intervene
155 Stitt Reply ISO Motion to Intervene
167 – OPINION & ORDER (3-16-26)
Prior post here.
New Student Scholarship on the Need for Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction over Non-Indian Drug Offenses
Shivani Singh has published “The Need for Special Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction Over Drug Crimes” in the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy.
An excerpt:
Limitations to Tribal criminal jurisdiction, especially over drug crimes, have ultimately contributed to “limited law enforcement; delayed prosecutions; too few prosecutions, and other prosecution inefficiencies” that have allowed non-Indian perpetrators to exploit a failing system and endanger vulnerable Tribal communities.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.