economic development – Page 17

Grand River Six Nations Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton Cert Petition

August 30, 2021January 7, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Questions presented:

1. Whether Connecticut impermissibly regulates or controls conduct beyond the boundaries of the State in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors doing no business in Connecticut and having no nexus with Connecticut.

2. Whether Connecticut violates Due Process protections when it bans a manufacturer’s products from being sold in the state, if the manufacturer fails to obtain and provide to Connecticut private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors relating to their distribution of products in jurisdictions other than Connecticut.

3. Whether Connecticut violates the Supremacy Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors who conduct no business in Connecticut nor distribute the manufacturer’s products to, or in, Connecticut.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Boughton BIO

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Wind Energy Project under Rule 19, Tribal Immunity

August 16, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are materials so far in Backcountry Against Dumps v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (S.D. Cal.):

75-1 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

84 Opposition

87 Reply

93 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Michigan SCT Holds KBIC Workers Did Not Violate State Tobacco Law When Transporting Unstamped Smokes

August 2, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion and the materials in People v. Magnant:

Prior post here.

First Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Tribal Immunity under Bankruptcy Act

July 26, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs in In re Coughlin:

Opening Brief

Joint Response Brief

NAFOA Amicus Brief

2021-07-22 Amici Professors of Federal Indian Law Brief – 1st Cir Docket No 21-1153

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Certifies Class in Williams v. Big Picture Loans

July 22, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Williams v. Big Picture Loans LLC (E.D. Va.) (this case is on remand from the Fourth Circuit):

960 DCT Order re Motion for Protective Order

968 Motion to Certify Class

1007 Opposition to 968

1055 Reply in Support of 968

1090 DCT Order Denying Motion for Stay Pending Appeal

1106 DCT on Motion to Certify Class

1110 Memorandum Opinion

Prior post here.

Federal Circuit Affirms ICE Detention Contract Award to Company Owned by Alaska Native Corp.

July 21, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Asset Protection & Security v. United States:

Federal Circuit Opinion

Federal Court Rejects Immunity Defense in Tribal Payday Lending Matter

July 15, 2021July 15, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the relevant materials in Brice v. Stinson (N.D. Cal.):

182 Motion for Summary Judgment

197 Opposition

216 Reply

236 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on defendants’ third affirmative defense; that some defendants are protected by or some claims extinguished by tribal immunity. In their opposition, defendants admit they personally “are not entitled to assert or invoke sovereign immunity as a defense to these claims” but nonetheless argue plaintiffs’ litigation “of these claims against shareholders of entities providing contractual services to those lenders is a significant infringement on the sovereignty of the tribes. . . . .” Dkt. No. 197 at 22. Defendants miss the point. The claims here hinge on the personal conduct of the defendants. While that conduct is based in significant part on the services defendants personally engaged in or approved to be provided to the Tribes, the claims do not impede on the sovereignty of the Tribes where the Tribes are not defendants in this case and no Tribal Entities remain. Absent apposite caselaw or facts showing how this action “interferes with the purpose or operation of a federal policy regarding tribal interests,” tribal immunity is irrelevant to this action.