Supreme Court – Page 129

Speculation on the Delay in Issuing the U.S. v. Tohono O’odham Nation Opinion from SCOTUSBlog

June 9, 2011June 9, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Recall our speculation on the seeming delay in the issuance of the TON opinion? Here is some more speculation from today’s SCOTUSblog Live Blog.

9:50

Tom:

It’s possible that they won’t be the authors of those two decisions, however. One might have lost a majority opinion.

9:51

Tom:

For example, Justice Sotomayor might have lost the majority in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation.

9:51

Tom:

In that case, which took longer than expected to decide (it was the next-longest-outstanding November case), she wrote a detailed concurring opinion that would have decided the case more narrowly. Justice Kennedy ended up writing the majority opinion.

State Supreme Court Outcomes: South Dakota

June 9, 2011June 8, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

After Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska, we turn to South Dakota, another state with no intermediate appellate court.

Some observers would like to see more detail about the cases (a short description of the subject matter, whether tribes had filed amicus briefs, and how they fared if they did, for example). To this we can only say … it’s summer. There just isn’t enough time in the day.

Tribal interests have a 50 percent chance of prevailing in the South Dakota Supreme Court.

Here are the cases we looked at:

Continue reading →

Osage Supplemental Brief in Response to SG’s Invitation Brief

June 8, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Osage Supp. Br

State Supreme Court Outcomes: Alaska

June 8, 2011June 7, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Well, we’ve looked at Montana (70 percent win rate for tribal interests) and North Dakota (38 percent), both states with no intermediate appellate court.

And now we look at Alaska.

Tribal interests prevail in about 46 percent of cases.

Here are the cases we counted:

Continue reading →

Government Moves to Dismiss Goodeagle v. U.S. under SCt’s Decision in Tohono O’odham

June 7, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is that motion:

US Motion to Dismiss Goodeagle Claims

An excerpt:

It is now well-established that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain a suit if the plaintiff has a suit in another court based upon substantially the same operative facts. Plaintiffs’ instant Complaint and the class action, currently pending before the District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”), Cobell, et al. v. Salazar, et al., No. 96-cv-1285, have asserted claims based on substantially the same operative facts. Thus, Congress, under 28 U.S.C. § 1500, has explicitly deprived this Court of jurisdiction to entertain a case containing claims that are for or in respect to claims which Plaintiffs have asserted in another pending case.

We reported the complaint here.

Donald Verrilli Confirmed as the New SG

June 7, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the link.

Here is our post detailing some of his Indian law experience, which we labeled “extensive.”

State Supreme Court Outcomes: North Dakota

June 7, 2011June 7, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

Continuing our project with another state supreme court — North Dakota — that, like Montana, (generally) does not have an intermediate appellate court, and must therefore handle all appeals.

Tribal interests have a 38 percent success rate before the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Here are the cases we counted:

Continue reading →

New Turtle Talk Project: State Supreme Court Outcomes — TODAY: Montana

June 6, 2011June 9, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

We at Turtle Talk are going to be spending some time in the coming weeks reporting the outcomes of state supreme courts in Indian law cases. As observers know all too well, tribal interests prevail less than 25 percent of the time before the United States Supreme Court (since 1986). But what about state supreme courts?

We begin today with the Montana Supreme Court, which is an elected court. There is no intermediate court of appeals, so the Supreme Court hears all appeals. There are a smattering of unpublished decisions out of the Court as a result, but we did not count these (usually an affirmation in an ICWA case without tribal intervention).

Tribes within Montana include the Crow Nation, the Confederate Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Fort Peck, Blackfeet, Rocky Boy’s, Little Shell, Northern Cheyenne, Pend O’reille, and Fort Belknap.

A quick note about “outcomes.” We count “wins” and “losses” from the point of view of the relevant tribal government(s). This is necessarily subjective. Some cases we simply cannot clearly count as either a win or a loss (for example, we decided not to count cases where the state court held it had criminal jurisdiction over a non-Indian for a “victimless” crime on the reservation; another example, many ICWA cases where the tribe is not an intervenor). Also, we have may have missed a few.

The “win” rate for tribal interests before the Montana Supreme Court is ~~70 percent~~ 68 percent.

Here is the list of cases we counted:

Continue reading →