Whether the Ninth Circuit’s mootness ruling warrants summary reversal where the panel clearly misapprehended governing law on mootness and on the authority of federal courts to order equitable relief affecting nonparties.
1. The Court denied cert in Acres v. Marston, part of a longstanding — and by now patently ridiculous — effort by a nonmember to punish an Indian tribe’s employees for working at the tribe. The petition is here (the respondent’s waived the right to respond):
2. The Court also denied cert in Mill Bay Members Assn. v. United States, another petition related to a longstanding effort by nonmembers to punish an Indian tribe for existing, this time by suing the federal government. The petition is here (the government waived the right to respond):
3. The Court also denied cert in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe, a case about tribal exhaustion with a plausible, if weak, circuit split — perhaps, again, because this is a longstanding, ridiculous dispute between a nonmember and tribe (both sides ridiculous this time). The cert stage briefs are here.
4. The Court, finally, denied cert in Quaempts v. Lopez, an unremarkable sovereign immunity matter.
Having fun with DALL-E: “Darth Vader arguing with a tribal judge about fish.”
Join ACS for our Annual Supreme Court Preview, part of our observation of this year’s Constitution Day. After the seismic decisions handed down last Term, all eyes will be on the Court this fall to see what may come next. The Preview will feature a diverse group of constitutional and legal experts offering their insights into the upcoming Supreme Court Term that begins on October 3rd.
Welcome Remarks
Russ Feingold, ACS President
Speakers
Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times (moderator)
Deborah Archer, President, ACLU; Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Faculty Director of the Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law, NYU School of Law
Jonathan Diaz, Senior Legal Counsel, Campaign Legal Center
Kent Greenfield, Professor and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar, Boston College Law School
Wenona Singel, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar; and Clinical Professor of Law, Penn State Law
Join ACS for our Annual Supreme Court Preview, part of our observation of this year’s Constitution Day. After the seismic decisions handed down last Term, all eyes will be on the Court this fall to see what may come next. The Preview will feature a diverse group of constitutional and legal experts offering their insights into the upcoming Supreme Court Term that begins on October 3rd.
Welcome Remarks
Russ Feingold, ACS President
Speakers
Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times (moderator)
Deborah Archer, President, ACLU; Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Faculty Director of the Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law, NYU School of Law
Jonathan Diaz, Senior Legal Counsel, Campaign Legal Center
Kent Greenfield, Professor and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar, Boston College Law School
Wenona Singel, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar; and Clinical Professor of Law, Penn State Law
Whether this Court, to allow for more complete state court tort remedies against individual tribal employees, as indicated in Lewis v. Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 1285 (2017), should clarify existing tribal sovereign immunity law to allow tort vic- tims to sue a tribe based on vicarious lia- bility when a tribe ratifies individual tribal employees’ actions giving rise to the state tort claims.
Whether the lower court’s refusal to rec- ognize a tribe’s ratification of tribal em- ployees’ allegedly tortious acts, as an express waiver of sovereign immunity im- permissibly interferes with states’ rights to award remedies to tort victims.
Whether an Indian tribal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a tribally created claim as an “other means” of regulating a nonmember federally funded and federally regulated electric cooperative tasked with providing electrical service to all customers within its service territory, including tribal members on Indian reservations?
You must be logged in to post a comment.