Here is the brief in Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections and Public Safety:

Here is the brief in Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections and Public Safety:

Here is the complaint in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Unite Here Local #19 (E.D. Cal.):

Here is the complaint in Nez Perce Tribe v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Idaho):

Here are materials in State of Oklahoma ex rel. Stitt v. City of Tulsa (Okla. S. Ct.):

Please check out Against Generalist Judges on SSRN (also available on the Stanford Law Review website).
Here is the “abstract”:
This essay offers yet another proposal for Supreme Court reform. My proposal is rooted in a preference for subject matter expertise in judging. Drawing from arbitration practice, I propose a system in which the parties to federal court litigation — from federal district court all the way to the Supreme Court — negotiate and choose judges from a pool of subject matter experts. The pool would consist of Article III judges who develop subject matter expertise in a given field, say, intellectual property or federal Indian law, and who are available to hear cases over which they are experts, not generalists. Although seemingly radical, there are already formal and informal models for this structure, namely the Federal Circuit, the D.C. Circuit, state courts of criminal appeals, tribal courts, and of course arbitration itself.

On August 14, 2025, the Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation and two Native voters filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana challenging Chouteau County’s unfair, at-large voting system for the Board of County Commissioners. The suit alleges the system unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of Native voters and has denied them any representation on the County Commission for more than a decade.

Read more here and see the Complaint below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.