Here.
Tu Stultus Es — Pactum Reservati Dominii
Here.
Supreme Court
Long Conference Update: SCOTUS Denies Cert in a Several Indian Law Cases
Here is yesterday’s order list.
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.
ACS Supreme Court Preview Panel [featuring Singel on Brackeen)
Lac Du Flambeau Ojibwe Cert Petition in Bankruptcy Act/Sovereign Immunity Case
Here is the petition in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin:
Question presented:
Whether the Bankruptcy Code expresses unequivocally Congress’s intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
American Constitution Society 2022 Supreme Court Preview — Thursday, 9/15 @ 12:30 EST [featuring Singel]
Register here.
Description:
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
American Constitution Society 2022 Supreme Court Preview [featuring Singel]
Register here.
Description:
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
Cert Stage Materials in Lopez v. Quaempts
Here:
Questions presented:
- 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.
Lower court materials here.
Scholars’ Circle Interviews: Bob Miller, Liz Reese, and Fletcher on Castro-Huerta
Here. It’s like a podcast thing-y.
Cert Petition in Big Horn County Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Big Man
Here:
Question presented:
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?
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Dept. of Justice [almost certainly over Interior’s objections] and Arizona File Cert Petitions in Navajo Nation Water Rights Trust Suit
Here is the petition in Dept. of the Interior v. Navajo Nation:
Question presented:
Whether the federal government owes the Navajo Nation an affirmative, judicially enforceable fiduciary duty to assess and address the Navajo Nation’s need for water from particular sources, in the absence of any substantive source of law that expressly establishes such a duty.
Here is the petition and the partial acquiescence by Justice in Arizona v. Navajo Nation:
Questions presented:
I. Does the Ninth Circuit Opinion, allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation’s water needs and manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to in- terfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court’s re- tained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California?
II. Can the Nation state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with this Court’s holding in Jicarilla based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the Winters Doctrine?
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.