Supreme Court Denies Cert in Two Indian Law Cases, and Declines to Correct Caption in Immigration Case

Here is today’s order.

The Court denied cert in Oravec v. Cole (page 2), and in Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority (page 10).

And issued this interesting order in Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona (page 1):

The motion of Jesus M. Gonzalez, et al. to correct case caption is denied.

National Indian Child Welfare Association Resources on Baby Veronica Case

Here.

Useful site, especially the Media Fact Check Matrix.

What is a “CVSG”?

We get the question all the time, so here goes:

A CVSG is an acronym for “call for the views of the Solicitor General.” This is a option for the Supreme Court when the United States is not a party to a cert petition but the interests of the federal government are implicated. It comes up when a party files a cert petition (say, the State of Michigan) where the respondent is not federal (say, the Bay Mills Indian Community) that involves the interpretation of federal statutes or some other federal interests. It comes up a lot (relatively speaking) in Indian law because the United States always has an interest (as trustee, etc.) in Indian cases, and have been involved in more Indian cases by far than any other party (even if you add up all the Supreme Court cases involving all Indian tribes collectively, I bet).

Since the Office of Solicitor General is influential on the Court, in part because it represents the United States and because it does so with remarkable candor about its positions, the SG’s brief (usually termed an “invitation brief”) is a strong indicator where the Court will go in terms of deciding whether to grant cert. In short, if the SG recommends denial, the Court very likely will deny.

Patricia Millett’s paper on the lawyering that goes on after the Court issues a CVSG is essential reading.

Supreme Court Invites SG to Brief Michigan v. Bay Mills; Denies Contour Spa Petition

Here is the order.

The Bay Mills CVSG notice is on page 2 (we called it here), and the Contour Spa denial notice is on page 4.

Supreme Court Grants Cert in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Here is today’s order.

Update — BLT coverage here.

SCOTUSBlog: Two Indian Law Petitions to Watch for this Week’s Conference

Here:

Issue: (1) Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63, to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law; and (2) whether ICWA defines “parent” in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent.
Issue: (1) Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin activity that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., but takes place outside of Indian lands; and (2) whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a tribe from violating IGRA outside of Indian lands.

 

State of New York Amicus Brief in Support of Madison County Cert Petition

Here:

New York Amicus Brief in Support of Petition

Cert Opposition Brief in Bivens Action against BIA Officer

Here is the cert opp in Oravec v. Cole:

Cole Cert Opp

Petition is here. I still expect a CVSG or something here.

Linda Greenhouse on Supreme Court Nominations and the Gun Lobby

Here.

An excerpt:

Back in 2009, when President Obama chose Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his first Supreme Court nominee, the White House expected that her compelling personal story, sterling credentials, and experience both as a prosecutor and, for 17 years, as a federal judge would win broad bipartisan support for her nomination. There was, in fact, no plausible reason for any senator to vote against her.

The president’s hope was Senator Mitch McConnell’s fear. In order to shore up his caucus, the Senate Republican leader asked a favor of his friends at the National Rifle Association: oppose the Sotomayor nomination and, furthermore, “score” the confirmation vote. An interest group “scores” a vote when it adds the vote on a particular issue to the legislative scorecard it gives each member of Congress at the end of the session. In many states, an N.R.A. score of less than 100 for an incumbent facing re-election is big trouble.

Creepy.

United States Cert Opposition Brief in Equal Justice Act Petition involving Menominee Officials

Here is the cert opp in Pecore v. United States:

US Cert Opp [Pecore]

The petition (and my musings about this case), here. The cert opp brief lays waste to my theory.