economic development – Page 22

An Indian tribe’s “subordinate economic organization” serves as an “arm of the tribe” and therefore shares its sovereign immunity. This tort case affords us an opportunity to identify factors courts should examine to decide whether a tribal entity serves in that capacity. After doing so, we conclude the tribal entity here did not prove it is a subordinate economic organization entitled to share the tribe’s immunity, and the superior court therefore did not err by denying the entity’s motion to dismiss.

Briefs are here.

Federal Court Certifies Tribal Lending Case for Interlocutory Appeal

February 23, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are materials in Hengle v. Asner (E.D. Va.):

113-tribal-motion-for-leave-to-appeal.pdf

116-asner-motion-for-leave-to-appeal.pdf

123-opposition-to-113.pdf

124-opposition-to-116.pdf

125-asner-reply.pdf

127-tribal-reply.pdf

128-dct-order-certifying-interlocutory-appeal.pdf

Prior post here.

Native Wholesale Supply v. California ex rel. Becerra Cert Petition

February 10, 2020July 27, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Native Wholesale Petition

Appendix

Questions presented:

1. Whether a contract for the purchase of goods entered into, and fully performed by, an Indian Tribe outside the exterior boundaries of the state in which the Tribe’s reservation is located can constitutionally subject the out of state vendor to the specific personal jurisdiction of the buyer’s state, under state laws purporting to regulate the sale of those goods in the buyer’s state.
2. Whether a state has specific personal jurisdiction to regulate a purchase of goods contract between an Indian on an Indian reservation outside the state and an Indian Tribe located within the state’s boundaries when the contract is performed on the
out of state Indian reservation.
3. Whether there is a constitutional or statutory right afforded to an Indian of one tribe to conduct business free from state regulation with an Indian of a different tribe, both of which are located in Indian country, under the Indian Commerce Clause.
4. Whether a tribally chartered corporation wholly owned by a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe is an Indian for purposes of the protections afforded to Indians under federal law.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Brief in Opposition