Here:
GAL Brief in Support of Petition
A direct challenge to the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, filed by Paul Clement. No circuit split, no split of authority in the state courts, arguments never raised below — an emotional plea to an unemotional Court.
Here. The program description:
Friday, October 26, 2012 – Affirmative Action in Education:
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education. This issue is something that has many in Indian Country concerned. With this in mind we ask, is diversity in college admissions a right Native students should be afforded? Can Native students still expect a quality college education if their test scores and academics aren’t measured equally to non-native students from more affluent backgrounds? What will the future look like for Native college hopefuls if the Supreme Court decides for or against? We’ll explore these questions and more as we discuss the Supreme Court, Affirmative Action, and the future of Native College students.
Here is the petition:
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari MI v BMIC
Better pdf here: Michigan v Bay Mills Cert Petition
Questions Presented:
1. Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin activity that violates IGRA but takes place outside of Indian lands.
2. Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a tribe from violating IGRA outside Indian lands.
Sixth Circuit materials here.
My earlier views on why this petition isn’t going anywhere are here. I would add now that since Bay Mills, as I understand it, hasn’t re-opened the casino, and since the State filed an amended complaint way back when, there doesn’t seem to be much pressure to grant this particular petition. Also, if this is really an IGRA fight over an allegedly illegal casino, it’s really the federal government’s fight. In fact, NIGC already referred the matter to the federal prosecutors … a while back. Michigan is trumping up an alleged compact violation that might not even exist. There might be a compact violation, or not, but the State in its petition doesn’t even point to which provision in the compact BMIC is violating (maybe they did, but I didn’t see it).
Sorry for the delay. Lots been happening. But as expected you all voted Worcester v. Georgia as the Greatest Case in the Turtle Talk poll, beating out Williams v. Lee badly — 70 percent to 30 percent (83 out of 109 votes).
I recall we did a short poll a few years back, and Worcester beat out a few other cases for the same title….
Here is today’s order list. From the order:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment with respect to all matters relating to respondent’s Revenue Sharing Act claim is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with instructions to dismiss that claim as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950).
Lower court materials here.
Here.
Here (we’ll post a pdf of the original when we get it):
Adoptive Couple v Baby Girl Cert Petition
No 12-__ Adoptive Couple v Baby Girl REDACTED
Questions presented:
(1) Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke ICWA to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law.
(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.
Here:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.