Filed yesterday, I’m told:
Question presented:
Is apparent authority sufficient to bind an Indian tribe to a waiver of the tribe’s federally protected sovereign immunity, when the purported waiver is executed by a tribal official acting outside the scope of his actual authority?
Lower court materials are here.
Here are the materials in Salton Sea Venture, Inc. v. Ramsey (S.D. Cal.):
Here:
The petition of the day is:
Malaterre v. Amerind Risk Management Corp.
Docket: 11-441Issue(s): Whether a tribal business corporation formed pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 477 with the aim of insuring Indian Housing Authorities may properly invoke tribal sovereign immunity as a ground for avoiding its contractual obligation to provide insurance coverage for liability claims arising from injuries sustained by tribal-member tenants in Indian housing units.
Certiorari stage documents:
Opinion below (8th Cir.)
Petition for certiorari
Here is the unpublished opinion in Parks v. Tulalip Casino Resort.
Lower court materials are here.
Here are the materials, which involved an effort by a state criminal defendant arrested on Tulalip Tribes territory to subpoena tribal records (the Tribes appeared to have argued they had no relevant records):
State v. Youde, Order Quashing Subpoena
Youde Memorandum of Authorities 092711
second Response to Objection to SDT
Here are the materials in Miller v. Wright (W.D. Wash.):
Here is the petition:
And the questions presented:
Whether a tribal business corporation formed pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 477 with the aim of insuring Indian Housing Authorities may properly invoke tribal sovereign immunity as a ground for avoiding its contractual obligation to provide insurance coverage for liability claims arising from injuries sustained by tribal-member tenants in Indian housing units.
Lower court materials here.
And for good measure, the Federal Reporter 3d version of the lower court opinion:
Here is the opening brief in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger:
Lower court materials are here.
In his new book, according to the National Law Journal’s Marcia Coyle, Justice Stevens levels strong criticism at the Supreme Court’s decision in Seminole Tribe v. Florida:
The tenor of the Court’s deliberations changed immediately when William Rehnquist became chief justice, according to Stevens. Rehnquist, he writes, was an impartial presiding officer and meticulous in noting the justices’ different positions on issues in each argued case. But Stevens levels some of the book’s sharpest criticism on Rehnquist’s decisions involving state sovereign immunity. Stevens considers the first in a line of 11th Amendment rulings — Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida — one of the Court’s worst rulings in his nearly 35 years. In an interview withThe National Law Journal, he explained that sovereign immunity is a “doctrine of injustice.”
And he calls the retirement of Thurgood Marshall, the “most significant judicial event” of Rehnquist’s tenure as chief, not only because of Marshall’s contributions to the Court’s conference but because of the changes in the Court’s jurisprudence attributable to the votes of his successor, Clarence Thomas.
Here are the materials in Larimer v. Konocti Vista Casino Resort, Marina & RV Park (N.D. Cal.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.