Supreme Court – Page 183

Third Part of Billings Gazette Special Report on Tribal Sovereignty

May 8, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Despite court rulings that slice away at tribal sovereignty, Indian law specialist Tom Fredericks of Boulder, Colo., believes “tribal governments are stronger than ever.”

They have to be. Retreating federal budgets place ever more burden on Indian governments to provide basic services.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs for years has been turning more federal responsibilities over to the tribes, contracting with them to provide services such as law enforcement, education and social services on the reservations.

Continue reading →

Research Note on Barriers to Indian Land Claims

May 6, 2008May 6, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

I’ve posted a short paper called “‘Now What the Hell You Gonna Do in Those Days?’ A Research Note on Practical Barriers to Indian Land Claims” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

There are extra-legal barriers that American Indian people faced when confronted with the illegal theft of their lands, or with any dispossession of their lands. Indian tribes and Indian people faced numerous practical barriers to bringing land and treaty claims prior to the modern era, including without limitation: (1) lack of financial resources; (2) lack of knowledge and sophistication about the American legal system; (3) demoralization; (4) lack of a clear and authorized tribal governmental plaintiff; and (5) government interference and control over tribal affairs.

For Indian tribes pursuing a remedy for these claims, there is a significant defense raised – why didn’t the tribes or the Indians bring these claims before? Since the Supreme Court decided Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Tribe, the equitable defense of laches has been raised by states, local units of government, and property owners against the tribal claims with frightening success rates. The defense is superficially compelling in large part because the practical reasons for failing to bring suit decades sooner might not be considered excusable.

In a pending case, Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, the National Congress of American Indians attempted to flesh out the practical barriers to tribal land claims in an amicus brief. This short Essay attempts to add to that research. But the ultimate purpose of this Essay is to call for serious empirical research on this difficult question – why didn’t Indians and tribes file suit to vindicate their rights to land?

Billings Gazette Special Report on Tribal Sovereignty

May 6, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

From the Billings Gazette:

When the last of the bison herds disappeared in the early 1880s, Indian nations on the Northern Plains were reduced to poverty.

In Montana, where there are no high-flying gambling operations and big population centers, economic conditions for American Indians have been slow to change. Unemployment is rampant, and business opportunities are scarce.

Through various acts of Congress, tribes are contracting with the federal government to provide essential services to their people. But federal funds, static for years, are shrinking. Tribes are taking on more responsibilities than ever for the welfare of their people and are pursuing economic opportunities to support their efforts.

Continue reading →

Border Fence Construction Cert Petition — Defenders of Wildlife v. Chertoff

May 5, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Tohono O’odham Nation joined an amicus brief supporting the cert petition in Defenders of Wildlife v. Chertoff (No. 07-1180) (amici-supporting-cert-petn-national-advocacy-center-et-al). The government has until May 18 to file a response. This is a potentially ground breaking case, given that the Department of Homeland Security has invoked a statute that allows the Department to ignore any law (especially environmental protection laws) that would delay the construction of the border fence (for analysis, see SCOTUSblog).

We’ve written about some aspects of this controversy earlier (here).

Carls v. Blue Lake Housing Authority Cert Petition Briefs Filed

May 5, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

While the chances for this petition on tribal sovereign immunity to be granted seem pretty slim, who knows? The cert petition briefs are all in and available here. We’ll know after the conference on May 8, 2008.

News Coverage of MichGo v. Kempthorne Case: Cert Petition Planned

May 2, 2008May 2, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

I spoke to the author of this news article yesterday. He quotes me as making yet another prediction on whether the Court will grant cert as being “zero,” but what I thought I said was that MichGo’s chances of getting a stay is close to zero. I did say that I think a plausible Section 5 challenge will have to come from a different fact pattern, such as an off-reservation fee to trust decision, assuming there will ever be any again. Or a decision involving a wealthy gaming tribe like Oneida or Mashantucket Pequot.

Of note, the reporter told me that the MichGo attorney thought that the Carcieri case was a good sign for MichGo, in part because so many states signed on to an amicus brief supporting the cert petition. He thinks those states will support MichGo’s petition, too. But I wonder. States like Michigan and California are actually banking on the revenues from new Indian gaming operations in order to help balance their budgets. I don’t think these states would sign on, or else they’d be hurting themselves.

From Indianz :

An Indian law professor says there’s “zero” chance the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a land-into-trust case involving the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan. Matthew L.M. Fletcher, an assistant professor of law and director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State University, said the court, at some point, will hear a challenge to the Indian Reorganization Act. The 1934 law authorized the land-into-trust process and opponents say it is unconstitutional. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and ruled that the Bureau of Indian Affairs can acquire 147 acres for the tribe. A casino and other development are planned at the site. One judge, however, agreed that Section 5 of the IRA is unconstitutional. A group called Michigan Gambling Opposition hopes to convince the Supreme Court that the law is too broad. But Fletcher says the case is bogged down by other details to make it appeal-worthy. “I don’t think there’s any chance,” he told The Grand Rapids Press. “I really think the odds are close to zero that the Supreme Court would hear it.”

Get the Story:
Foes of Gun Lake Casino cling to slim legal hope (The Grand Rapids Press 5/2)
Gun Lake casino opponents down to last try (The Muskegon Chronicle 5/2)

Kickapoo v. Texas — US Recommends Cert Denial

May 1, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

In the Kickapoo Tribe’s petition for cert to the Supreme Court re: the Class III Procedures (i.e, the Seminole Tribe “fix”) that were invalidated by the Fifth Circuit, the United States (ostensibly on the same side as the Tribe) filed a brief opposing certiorari (here). The State of Texas had already declined to respond to the cert petition.

The government’s brief is an interesting read. First, the US says the Fifth Circuit was wrong on any number of points — namely, that the court incorrectly held that the case was ripe for decision (the procedures were not yet complete) and that the court incorrectly held that the Secretary was not authorized to issue the regulation in the first place. Second, the government says there is no reason to hear this case now, given that it would be a case of first impression for the Supreme Court (usually a death knell for cert petitions) and that the Fifth Circuit’s panel decision was split three ways.

If there was any doubt that the Kickapoo petition would be denied, this brief effectively dispels that doubt.

Analysis of Judge Rogers’ Dissent in MichGo v. Kempthorne

April 30, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Yesterday’s per curiam opinion in MichGo v. Kempthorne, while very, very important to the Gun Lake Band and other Michigan tribes, did not break any new ground. It was the third time in recent years that citizens groups challenged the Secretary of Interior’s decision to take land into trust for gaming purposes for the three southwest Michigan Potawatomi tribes (the other two were TOMAC v. Norton and CETAC v. Kempthorne). Each of the challenges raised NEPA and constitutional claims of very similar character. Each time it was relatively easy for the D.C. Circuit to dispose of these arguments, which some argued bordered on frivolous.

But there is a strong threat to the future of tribal property contained in these cases.

The constitutional challenge is that Section 5 of the IRA (25 U.S.C. 465) is an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional power to the Secretary of Interior. Section 5 allows the Secretary, at his discretion, to acquire land in trust for Indians and Indian tribes. If this discretion is absolute, then it is a violation of the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution. But until yesterday, the constitutional challenge did not garner a single vote in any of the three Potawatomi cases. In fact, though this constitutional challenge has been raised by states and localities repeatedly since the early 1980s, it has not garnered a single vote from a federal judge since 1996, when Justice Scalia dissented from a GVR in United States v. South Dakota, 519 U.S. 919 (1996). The Supreme Court recently granted cert. in Carcieri v. Kempthorne, another of these challenges, but declined to hear the constitutional challenge.

Continue reading →

Rose Villazor on Indian Blood Quantum and Equal Protection

April 29, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Rose Cuison Villazr (SMU) has posted her wonderful paper, “Blood Quantum Land Laws and the Race Versus Political Dilemma,” forthcoming in the California Law Review, on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Modern equal protection doctrine treats laws that make distinctions on the basis of indigeneity defined on blood quantum terms along a racial versus political paradigm. This dichotomy may be traced to Morton v. Mancari and, more recently, to Rice v. Cayetano. In Mancari, the Supreme Court held that laws that privilege members of American Indian tribes do not constitute racial discrimination because the preferences have a political purpose – to further the right of self-government of federally recognized American Indian tribes. Rice crystallized the juxtaposition of the racial from the political nature of indigeneity by invalidating a law that privileged Native Hawaiians. That law, according to the Court, used an ancestral blood requirement to construct a racial category and a racial purpose as opposed to the legally permissible political purpose of promoting the right of self-government of American Indian tribes.

Continue reading →