Tanner v. Cayuga Nation Cert Petition

Here:

Petition

Questions presented:

1. In view of Sherrill, whether New York tribes exercise “concurrent” jurisdiction over fee lands within the plenary taxing and regulatory authority of the state and local governments, thereby enabling those tribes to engage in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and cause the same or greater disruptions of settled expectations condemned by this Court in Sherrill.

2. Whether fee lands under plenary state and local taxation and regulation (per Sherrill) constitute “Indian lands” under IGRA because those lands are located within the Cayugas’ historic reservation.

3. Whether the Cayuga Nation’s ancient reservation was disestablished. 

Lower court materials here.

Oklahoma Federal Court Dismisses Nonmember Company’s Objection to Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Here are the materials in Monster Tech. Group v. Eller (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Agreement

1-2 AAA Petition

1-3 Iowa Tribal Court Injunction

4-1 Monster Group Motion

5 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint without Prejudice

7-1 Motion for Reconsideration

8 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration

Seminole Gaming Compact Set Aside

Here are the orders (they are the same) in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

43 DCT Order

And in Monterra MF v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

55 DCT Order

Briefs in both cases here.

California COA Decides Acres v. Marston

Here is the opinion:

Briefs:

Keep in mind as to this case and the related Ninth Circuit case we posted a while ago here, this is about a nonmember sued by a tribe in tribal court for breach of contract, a nonmember who won before the tribal court, and now is suing the tribal judges, tribal employees, and the lawyers for the tribe for racketeering because the nonmember believes there was a conspiracy against him. The only reason this case exists is because of the Lewis v. Clarke decision (preceded by Ninth Circuit cases) that holds individuals who work for tribes sued in their individual capacities are not immune. Even if the nonmember’s claim here has validity (seems very unlikely but who knows?), this case is definitive proof that the Lewis v. Clarke precedent will allow absolutely frivolous contract and other claims to proceed against tribes on the Lewis v. Clarke fiction that tribal employees sued in their individual capacity are somehow not engaged in tribal governmental activity and that the tribes that indemnify their employees are doing so for reasons unrelated to tribal governmental prerogatives. Here, we’re talking tribal judges (including an associate judge who was not assigned the case), a court clerk, and lawyers retained by the tribe to merely serve as counsel for the tribe, among others. They might all win below, as the court here suggests, but they have to make the correct arguments in what appears to be a game of whack-a-mole.

Cert Petition Filed in Challenge to Wilton Rancheria Lands Case

Here is the petition in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of the Interior:

SUFC! Petition

Question presented:

Whether the Secretary can acquire land in trust on behalf of Indians whose federal supervision was terminated by Congress.

Lower court materials here.

Big Sandy Cert Petition in Tax Case

Here is the petition in Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Bonta:

Questions presented:

1. Whether an Indian tribe incorporated by federal charter under section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. § 5124) is an “Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior” authorized to bring suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1362.

2. Whether the Indian Trader Statutes (25 U.S.C. §§ 261-263) or the Bracker balancing test (see White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980)) preempts the State of California’s regulation of intertribal cigarette sales, where an Indian tribe sells tribally manufactured cigarettes to Indian tribal buyers on their home reservations.

Lower court materials here.

Nevada Federal Court Dismisses Gaming-Related Contract Breach Action against Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians

Here are the materials in Platform 10 LLC v. Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (D. Nev.):

1 Complaint

14 Motion for Default Judgment

16 DCT Order

 

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Miccosukee Member’s Challenge to Federal Income Taxes on Per Capita Payments

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage materials in Clay v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.