Much like the 2009 letter from the Interior Solicitor’s Office in relation to the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, a new letter from the Interior Solicitor makes the same argument — that the National Labor Relations Act does not apply to Indian tribes — in relation to the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.
Here is the new letter (signed by Patrice Kunesh, Deputy Solicitor, Indian Affairs):
Fine Point has posted case materials here.
Here is that order:
DCT Order Dismissing Alturas Complaint
And the materials:
Rose Faction Motion to Dismiss
The court had previously granted the plaintiffs a TRO. Here are those materials.
Here are those materials:
BMIC Council Motion to Dismiss
BMIC Gaming Commission Motion to Dismiss
BMIC Motion to Dismiss LTBB Amended Complaint
Here is the State’s amended complaint.
Meanwhile, a Sixth Circuit panel is currently considering BMIC’s motion to strike its opponents briefs:
Here are the updated materials in Friends of Amador County v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):
Friends Motion to Amend Judgment
DCT Order Denying Friends’ Motion
Here are the earlier materials.
Here. An excerpt:
WAYLAND TOWNSHIP — The Supreme Court will decide next year whether the federal government properly took land into trust for the Gun Lake Tribe to build a casino, in a case that experts say reaches far beyond the borders of Allegan County.
On Monday, the court agreed to hearformer Wayland Township trustee David Patchak’s reinstated lawsuit against the Gun Lake Band of Pottawatomi and the federal Interior Department, a case which could force the Gun Lake Casino to shut its doors.
The casino, which employs about 900 people, opened in February and has since paid out $10.4 million in state and local revenue sharing while raking in about $104 million in net profits on electronic games after payouts in less than a year of operation.
“This is an incredibly high-stakes case,” said Matthew Fletcher, a law professor at Michigan State University who specializes in Indian gaming law. “This casino is generating a lot of revenue — a lot more than they thought they would.”
But the Supreme Court, which accepts only about 3 to 4 percent of cases for which they’re petitioned each year, would not be scheduling arguments if the lawsuit were simply about jobs, profits and revenue sharing for municipalities, although that helps, said Fletcher.
Rather, the Roberts Court justices are likely hoping to clear-up a gray-area in the law that governs decisions by the Department of Interior about taking land in trust on behalf of Indian tribes; a wrinkle that bodes well for the tribe and the government, he said.
The Supreme Court typically reverses about 70 to 75 percent of cases they hear, Fletcher said. “They usually agree to hear a case when they think a lower court is wrong.”
The Supreme Court granted cert in an Indian law case where the petition was filed in favor of tribal interests. This is, of course, the Patchak case involving the Department of Interior’s decision to take land into trust for gaming purposes on behalf of the Gun Lake Band. The last time the Court granted a petition filed on behalf of tribal interests was Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt, a case decided in 2005. The Court might also grant cert this Term in Ramah Navajo v. Salazar. Key to these successful cert petitions is the participation of the United States as supportive of the granting of the petition (if not the merits). In fact, every cert petition granted on behalf of tribal interests in recent memory has the support of the federal government, the last one (I believe) being Mississippi Band Choctaw v. Holyfield. Only Justice Scalia remains from that Court.
Key point: A cert petition on behalf of tribal interests has almost no chance of being granted by the Roberts Court unless the United States favors of the petition. Even then, as the Oneida and Cayuga land claims petitions demonstrates, it is a bit of a crap shoot.
Corboy v. Louie is more representative of where the Supreme Court is in relation to Indian law (though I suppose this isn’t an Indian law case, precisely). There’s nothing certworthy in this case whatsover (no split, nothing of national importance, a case brought by a private tax protester), but the Court is thinking carefully about this case perhaps because Indian law-type legal doctrines are outside of what Dean Getches called the “mainstream” of constitutional law, and should be reeled in. I have no doubt the OSG will recommend a denial because there simply is nothing worthy of Supreme Court review, but the fact this isn’t already a denied petition is telling.
Key point: A cert petition opposing tribal interests (regardless of its merit) receives more attention from the Supreme Court than a petition favoring tribal interests. End of story.
Here is the unpublished opinion.
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.