Here:
Cert Opposition Brief in U.S. v. New York and Oneida v. Oneida County
Here:
Supreme Court
Gila River Indian Community v. Lyon Cert Petition
Here:
Gila River v Lyon Cert Petition
Here are the questions presented:
I. Whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b), courts may adjudicate and compromise legal rights in land to which the United States holds title without the United States’ participation in the litigation.
II. Whether, in light of this Court’s recent decision in United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, No. 10-382 (June 13, 2011), the Ninth Circuit properly held, as a matter of law, that litigation compromising the United States’ title in land can proceed in the United States’ absence as long as an Indian tribe is a party to the litigation.
Here are the lower court materials.
Cert Petition in Arctic Slope v. Sebelius (II)
It will be interesting to see what the OSG does with this. The last time a circuit split developed in similar circumstances, the government brought a cert petition and essentially concurred with the tribal cert petition (Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt).
Here are the materials:
Here is the question presented:
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Tenth Circuit, that a government contractor which has fully performed its end of the bargain has no remedy when a government agency overcommits itself to other projects and, as a result, does not have enough money left in its annual appropriation to pay the contractor.
Here are the lower court materials.
And here are the materials in Ramah, the Tenth Circuit case that generates the circuit split.
American Indian Women and the SCOTUS’ Recent Decision on Violent Video Games
It may have gone unnoticed, but Justice Alito’s concurring opinion in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. listed a game where the “goal is to rape Native American women…” in his list of awful games offered by the video game industry. His citation for that game was a 1982 issue of People Magazine, available here (Custer Article). An old game, but it definitely is part of an ugly theme in Indian law and policy — sexual abuse of American Indian women.
SCOTUSblog: Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County is Petition of the Day
Here:
The petition of the day is:
Title: Oneida Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, New York
Docket: 10-1420
Issue(s): (1) Whether the court of appeals contravened this Court’s decisions in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida and City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nationby ruling that “equitable considerations” rendered petitioners’ claims for money damages for the dispossession of their tribal lands in violation of federal law void ab initio; and (2) whether the court of appeals impermissibly encroached on the legislative power of Congress by relying on “equitable considerations” to bar petitioners’ claims as untimely, even though they were brought within the statute of limitations fixed by Congress for the precise tribal land claims at issue.Certiorari stage documents:
State Supreme Court Outcomes: Connecticut
Here is Connecticut. Lots of cases featuring non-federally recognized tribes, so those claims are going to have a rough time.
In Connecticut, tribal interests prevail in 38 percent of cases.
Here are the cases:
State Supreme Court Outcomes: New Mexico
We took a day off yesterday (travel to give a talk to the 2011 PLSI’ers). And in honor of them, New Mexico!
In New Mexico, tribal interests succeed 44 percent of the time.
Here are the cases (including yesterday’s whopper!):
Supreme Court Recap: 2010 Term
The Supreme Court’s 2010 Term — for tribal interests — was a flurry of activity, but with little to show for it. In Shakespeare’s words, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing (or almost nothing). Our two previews are here and here. Our previous mid-Term updates are here and here.
The underlying theme of the Term seems to be the aggressive campaign by the Department of Justice to undermine the tribal-federal trust relationship. Of note, the once-prominent and now-discredited Lone Wolf period where the Supreme Court granted free reign to Congress and the Executive branch appears to be recurring, with the Executive branch now enjoying virtually unlimited authority to handle tribal trust property with little or no consultation. Also, for the sixth consecutive Term, and for every Term except 1996, the Court granted zero tribal petitions.
Granted Cases
1. United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation (09-846). Loss.
The Court ruled 7-1 against the Nation (with Justice Kagan recused). Only Justice Ginsburg dissented. The Court then GVR’d a similar case, United States v. Eastern Shawnee. Within a few weeks of the outcome, the government began moving for dismissal of claims around the country, the first apparently being the Goodeagle case.
Oral argument recaps are here and here (from Millett and Meggesto). The oral argument transcript is here.
2. Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation (10-72). GVR.
This is the big surprise of the Term (and it appears the closest thing to a “win” for tribal interests), with the Supreme Court granting cert on the question whether tribes are immune from foreclosures by counties for failure to pay property taxes, and then the Oneida Indian Nation enacting an ordinance purporting to waive its immunity from such suits. Over the petitioners’ objections, the Court remanded the case back to the Second Circuit for reconsideration in light of Oneida’s waiver.
3. United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation (10-382). Loss.
Easily the biggest case for tribal interests the Court granted this Term, and the biggest disappointment. The Court ruled 7-1 (with Justice Kagain recused, and Justice Sotomayor dissenting) that common law fiduciary trust law doesn’t apply to Congressionally-created trusts. The outcome here means that It remains to be seen whether other trusts would survive the ruling. The case attracted attention from a national Court observer (Andrew Cohen), who harshly criticized the decision (here).
The oral argument transcript is here.
CVSGs
News Coverage of Brown v. Rincon Band
From McClatchy News Service:
By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday undercut California’s negotiating clout with tribes, as the justices effectively upheld a decision that the state overreached when it compelled general fund payments in exchange for casino approvals.
The court’s decision not to hear California’s appeal is an immediate victory for the San Diego-area Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians. The tribe wants to add hundreds of slot machines to its existing Harrah’s Rincon Casino & Resort, north of Escondido.
Osage Nation v. Irby and Brown v. Rincon Petitions Denied
The Supreme Court denied both the Osage Nation v. Irby and Brown v. Rincon Band petitions today. The order list is here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.