SCOTUS Petition for Cert in Lewis v. Clarke

Download Petition for Writ of Certiorari (PDF)

Link to briefs previously posted here.

Question Presented: Whether the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment.

First Issue of Indian Gaming Lawyer

Download Vol. 1 No.1 (Spring 2016) here.

United South and Eastern Tribes Amicus Brief in Support of the Tribal Petitioners against NLRB

Here is the USET brief in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. NLRB:

USET Amicus in Support of Tribal Petitions

This one is substantially the same as USET’s brief in the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government v. NLRB case.

Update in Forest County Potawatomi Challenge to Class III Gaming Compact Disapproval

Here are the materials in Forest County Potawatomi Community v. United States (D.D.C.):

19-1 US Motion to Transfer Venue

20 FCPC Opposition

21 Reply

22-1 Menominee Motion to Intervene

27 FCPC Opposition to Menominee Intervention Motion

31 Menominee Reply

33 DCT Order Denying Motion to Transfer

We posted the complaint way back in early 2015.

Connecticut SCT Affirms Tribal Immunity from Tort Suit; Rejects Ninth Circuit’s Maxwell Rule on Official Immunity

Here are the materials in Lewis v. Clarke (Conn.):

Ct SCT Opinion

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply

Ninth Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity over Arbitration Claim

Here is the unpublished opinion in Cosentino v. Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians.

Briefs are here.

Enterprise Rancheria Prevails in IGRA Good Faith Negotiations Suit against California

Here are the materials in Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria v. State of California (E.D. Cal.):

14-1 Tribe Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

16 Opposition

17-1 State Motion

19 State Legislature Amicus Brief

20 Tribe Reply

21 State Reply

27 DCT Order

Flandreau Santee Sioux Prevails in Tax Dispute with South Dakota

Here is the order in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (D. S.D.):

60 DCT Order

Briefs here.

Siletz Tribe Raises Minimum Wage

Here (PDF):

Siletz Tribe Raises Minimum Wage

The Siletz Tribal Council has raised the hourly minimum wage for employees of all tribal entities from $9.25 to $11 an hour.

The new minimum wage applies to Chinook Winds Casino Resort, including the hotel, golf course and fitness center. It also applies to all employees of the Tribal government and tribally owned entities, including the Siletz Tribal Business Corporation, Internal Audit Department and the Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission.

Tribal Council approved the raise effective Jan. 1, 2016, which will result in a small retroactive payment for employees currently making the tribal minimum wage. Annually, the increase means an extra $2,704 for a minimum wage employee working 30 hours a week. This additional income will help with the rising costs of groceries, gas, heath care, utilities, rent and recreation, which also benefits the local economy.

According to Tribal Chairman Delores Pigsley, “The Tribal Council sees the new tribal minimum wage as one way to help employees and their families to make ends meet.”

Saginaw Chippewa v. NLRB Cert Petition

Here:

Saginaw Cert Petition and Appendix- Filed

Questions presented:

For more than sixty years, the National Labor Relations Board correctly declined to exercise jurisdiction over tribal operations on tribal lands. But in recent years, the Board has belatedly asserted the extraordinary power to regulate the on-reservation activities of sovereign Indian tribes, precipitating a three-way circuit split in the process. Nothing in the text of the National Labor Relations Act changed in that interval; it contains no language granting the Board authority over Indian tribes. Nor has the language of various Indian treaties, like those between the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and the United States, changed; they continue to recognize the Tribe’s authority to exclude non-members. And despite the Board’s complete lack of expertise in Indian law, the Board now dictates that some tribal operations are subject to the NLRA and others are not based on its evaluation of the centrality of certain functions to tribal sovereignty and subtle differences in treaty language. 

This case presents two questions, both of which have divided the courts of appeals:

(1) Does the National Labor Relations Act abrogate the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes and thus apply to tribal operations on Indian lands? 

(2) Does the National Labor Relations Act abrogate the treaty-protected rights of Indian tribes to make their own laws and establish the rules under which they permit outsiders to enter Indian lands?

Lower court materials here.