Notwithstanding the deference afforded to arbitration awards, arbitrators lack the power to facially invalidate federal and state statutes. Similarly, courts defer to Tribal interpretation of Tribal law, as a critical element of longstanding policies upholding and safeguarding Tribal sovereignty. Does an arbitrator exceed his authority when he facially invalidates a duly-enacted Tribal law, especially when a court would not do so and when he would not be permitted to invalidate a duly-enacted federal or state statute?
One excerpt, suggesting Indians are like diplomats, what I’ve been saying all along, dammit:
Page 5 (majority)
Another, more explicitly, on Indians as diplomats:
Page 12 (majority)
Another onthe government’s ridiculousness re: Elk v. Wilkins:
Page 23 n. 5 (majority)
From Justice Jackson’s concurrence, the only intellectually honest opinion from this rat’s nest of white supremacy:
Page 17-18 (Jackson, J., concurring)
On why birthright citizenship is an issue in 2026:
Page 19 (Jackson, J., concurring)
On the Indian Citizenship Act:
Page 15 n. 5 (Jackson, J., concurring)
The possible seeds for an undoing of the contemptible Elk v. Wilkins decision, which also rested on Dred Scott:
Page 20 (Jackson, J., concurring)
Justice Thomas’ dissent (the principal dissent) waxed on and on about “tribal Indians,” leading (I suggest) to at least two conclusions: (1) the United States does not have the power to tax “tribal Indians”; (2) the right of tribal self-government derives from international customary law (here comes UNDRIP!); and (3) Elk is wrong:
Pages 24-26 (Thomas, J., dissenting)
More Elk is wrong fodder:
Page 30-31 (Thomas, J., dissenting)
More on Elk, though in reliance this time:
Pages 36-37 (Thomas, J., dissenting)
On the Indian Citizenship Act:
Page 41 n. 7 (Thomas, J., dissenting)
Wha??China is less or equally alien than the Cherokee Nation?
Page 62-63 (Thomas, J., dissenting)
“Tribal Indians”in same category as diplomats and “hostilealien occupiers” — this is getting weird:
Page 65 (Thomas, J., dissenting)
Nothing from me on Kavanaugh or Alito, who don’t merit attention.
Here is COLT’s amicus brief in support of the petition for writ of certiorari in Suncor Energy (USA) Inc. v. Board of Commissioners for Boulder County:
On May 18, 2026, in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe,the petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was granted, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Eighth Circuit in light of Louisiana v. Callais (2026). You can see the order here.
You can see the cert petition here and Eighth Circuit materials here. You can see more about the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callaishere and the opinion here.
(1) Is the United States’ promise to provide the Winnemucca Indian Colony, a federally recognized Tribe with lands held in trust established by an Executive Order and a separate legislative act, coupled with the government’s nearly exclusive statutory and regulatory control over the water on Indian lands, sufficient to entitle an Indian tribe to money damages when the United States breaches its fiduciary duty to protect the natural resources on those Indian lands?
(2) Did the Federal Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, err when it affirmed dismissal of the Winnemucca Indian Colony’s third claim for relief – Breach of Trust – Water?
(3) Can the Winnemucca Indian Colony state a cognizable claim for breach of trust against the United States in relation to BIA failure to prevent trespass and theft of natural resources by third parties, under the Winters doctrine and 25 C.F.R. § 152.22?
More importantly, I would like to introduce you to a new website that will hopefully be of interest to you and your network: The Supreme Court Indian Law Database. Recently launched, this resource offers a number of important features.
The pages for each individual case identifies the other cases on the list that it cites and the cases where it has been cited. For example, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia cites three cases and has been cited forty-eight times
In the future, we intend on adding additional search functions to the list. Thus, hopefully before long a researcher will be able to easily identify cases decided between a certain date range, or cases that fall under the same four categories, or find out which three justices participated in the same cases or any combination of all three of these things and more.
In addition, there is room for debate for what counts as an Indian law case or for which category a particular case belongs. While acknowledging this certain subjectivity, quite a bit of thought and care went into curating the list. If you have questions about the list or would like to know how we came up with it I invite you to visit the methodology page.
Finally, while a lot of thought and care has been put into the list and the website, it is still very new and there is always room for improvement. To that end, if you have any constructive feedback you would like to share my email address is at the bottom of the main page.
I am so happy to be able to share this research with you. I, along with a small team (who you will eventually get to meet once we get our “contributor” page running), have been working diligently on this website for the past two years. It is free and available to the public and will be so as long as I have any say about it. My hope is that it will be a valuable resource for practitioners, scholars, students, tribal nations and peoples, and anyone else with an interest in Native America and a desire to see Indigenous peoples thrive. Thank you and happy searching on SCILDB.com!
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.