Here is the petition:
Here are the briefs:
Here is the petition:
Here are the briefs:
Here are the materials in Johnson v. Oneida Nation Enterprise LLC (N.D. N.Y.):


Here are the materials so far in Jones v. Wildcat (E.D. Pa.):
2019.06.07-docket-1-complaint-with-exhibits.pdf
2019.08.30-docket-9-wildcat-mtd.pdf
Here:
petitionforwritofcertiorari-3.pdf
Question presented:
Where an arbitration agreement contains a separate “delegation provision” that reserves for an arbitrator the authority to decide any disputes concerning arbitrability, does Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act require a court to decide any challenge to that provision’s validity before the court may proceed to address whether the parties’ underlying dispute is arbitrable?
Lower court materials here.
Update:
BIO: BriefInOpposition
Here are the materials in Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Becerra (E.D. Cal.):
Here.
Excerpt:
A dispute over the practice of flaring natural gas from oil wells fuels the legal controversy in this case: the scope of Native American tribal court authority over nonmembers. Several members of the MHA Nation sued numerous non-tribal oil and gas companies in MHA tribal court. Those companies operate oil wells on lands within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation that have been allotted to individual tribe members but are held in trust by the federal government. The tribe members alleged the companies owed royalties from wastefully-flared gas. Some of these companies unsuccessfully contested the tribal court’s jurisdiction over them in tribal court. Then they initiated this action in federal court to enjoin the tribal court plaintiffs and tribal court judicial officials. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, and the tribal court plaintiffs and officials separately appealed. We affirm the injunction because we conclude suits over oil and gas leases on allotted trust lands are governed by federal law, not tribal law, and the tribal court lacks jurisdiction over the nonmember oil and gas companies.
Briefs here.
Here is the decision:
Here are the materials in Cedar Band of Paiutes v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Utah):
73-reply-in-support-of-motion-for-pi.pdf
News article explaining the injunction here.
We posted the complaint and the motion here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.