Supreme Court

MLive Coverage of Patchak Decision

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

The nation’s highest court has decided to allow a lawsuit to move forward which threatens to shut down gaming at the Gun Lake Casino in Wayland Township.

In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld a lower court decision to allow former Wayland Township trustee David Patchak to continue with his lawsuit in federal district court.

Patchak, backed by anonymous benefactors, has challenged how the federal government took land in trust for the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, also known as the Gun Lake Tribe, in order for them to construct a casino.

Who are these people?

Quick and Dirty Commentary on Patchak

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Four points on today’s decision in Patchak.

First, the SG lost yet another case while acting as tribal trustee. The trust responsibility is in real trouble, despite the Court’s surprising affirmation of Ramah. The Supreme Court does not appear to defer in any way to the OSG and especially the Department of Interior in the Indian cases, as I have said before.

Second, a majority of the Supreme Court appears to care nothing about the destabilizing consequences of their decisions. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent laid it all out for the rest of the Court. It’s not like the statutory construction of the Quiet Title Act and the Administrative Procedures Act was inevitable. This was not a plain language decision, but an interpretation. The Court chose this route over others.

Third, the Supreme Court once again has directly challenged Congress on Indian affairs. How many times has the Court said in the last 25 years, we’ve made our decision, now let Congress fix it if they don’t like it. So far, with the exception of the Duro fix, Congress hasn’t fixed anything. As I said before the SCIA a few weeks ago, Congress needs to step up and take charge of Indian affairs. Right now, the Supreme Court calls the shots.

Fourth, Justice Sotomayor proved today in her masterful and enlightening dissent that she is serious about knowing the practical realities of Indian country. With the only possible contender being Justice Blackmun, Justice Sotomayor may be the only Justice in American history that cares deeply enough about what happens in Indian country to learn about the impacts of the Court’s decisions. This is a common law area of law, and the Court has important policy making responsibilities that it is neglecting, and Justice Sotomayor is doing her homework.

Supreme Court Affirms Patchak and Ramah

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

From How Appealing:

Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, No. 11-246. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, No. 11-551. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

Harold Monteau Critique of Congressional Research Service Report on VAWA Reauthorization

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here.

The CRS report at issue is here.

The law professor letter (spearheaded by Sarah Deer) is here.

Petition for Cert in Young v. Fitzpatrick

Kate Fort1 Comment

Questions presented:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Whether Police Officers, Employed by the Puyallup Indian Tribe, But Trained, Certified, and Cross-Commissioned by the State of Washington, and Armed, Equipped, and Provisioned by the United States, Are Subject to the Constitution, U.S. Civil Rights Laws, and State Tort Law;

2. Whether the Shelter or Conceal Clause of the Treaty of Medicine Creek, and Additional Sources of Federal and State Law, Preempts Any Claims of Qualified Immunity by Individual Puyallup Tribal Police Officer Defendants in a Suit for Violation of the Constitution, U.S. Civil Rights Laws, and State Tort Law.

Cert Petition

WA App Ct Decision (WA Supreme Court Decision denied petition for review)

Previous coverage here.

New Yorker Profile on the Supreme Court and Judicial Independence

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

Federally, few rulings have wreaked such havoc on the political process as the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, whereby the Roberts Court struck down much of the McCain-Feingold Act, which placed restrictions on corporate and union funding of political campaigns. Stevens, in his dissent, warned that “a democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”
That, in the end, is the traffic to worry about. If not only legislators but judges serve at the pleasure of lobbyists, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers. Law will be commerce. And money will be king.

Continue reading →

Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief in Corboy v. Louie

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

Interesting brief, filed in response to the SG’s invitation brief recommending denial of the petition. I wonder how many of these briefs directly insult the SG’s office. This one skirts the edge of insult, I think, questioning the candor of the SG.

The invitation brief is here. The petition is here.

Salon: Muppet Theory and the Supreme Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here. An excerpt:

Think about your basic Muppet workplaces: Be it “Pigs in Space,” Oscar’s garbage can, or producing a hit Broadway show in 19 hours, it’s always crucial to get the ratio of Order-to-Chaos exactly right. One possible explanation for the blossoming dysfunctionality of the current Supreme Court is that the Order Muppets have all but taken over. With exception of Justices Breyer and Antonin Scalia, the Order Muppets are running the show completely. (The jury is still out on whether Elena Kagan may prove a Chaos Muppet.) Remember the old rule of thumb: Too many Order Muppets means no cookies for anyone.

Opening Merits Stage Briefs in Fisher v. University of Texas

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here (briefs in red below are those that mention Elizabeth Warren):

Merit Briefs

Amicus Briefs

Supreme Court Justices Really Are That Similar

Kate Fort

From SCOTUSblog:

The current members of the Supreme Court have remarkably similar backgrounds — they all attended either Harvard or Yale Law Schools, and have spent most of their careers in the cloistered setting of academia or appellate litigation. Although many have noted, and criticized, this lack of diversity, until now no one had compared the background of the current Justices with their predecessors. A new article by Professor Benjamin Barton does just that, confirming the perception that recent appointees lack the range of life experiences that characterized previous Courts. After canvassing an impressive amount of biographical data from the very first Chief Justice, John Jay, up to the most recent appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, Barton concludes that “the Roberts Court Justices have spent more pre-appointment time in legal academia, appellate judging, and living in Washington, D.C. than any previous Supreme Court. They also spent the most time in elite undergraduate and law school settings. Time spent in these pursuits has naturally meant less time elsewhere: The Roberts Court Justices spent less time in the private practice of law, in trial judging, and as elected politicians than any previous Court.”

The article is here.