Here:
Cert stage briefs are here.
Supreme Court
Grand River Six Nations Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether Connecticut impermissibly regulates or controls conduct beyond the boundaries of the State in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors doing no business in Connecticut and having no nexus with Connecticut.
2. Whether Connecticut violates Due Process protections when it bans a manufacturer’s products from being sold in the state, if the manufacturer fails to obtain and provide to Connecticut private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors relating to their distribution of products in jurisdictions other than Connecticut.
3. Whether Connecticut violates the Supremacy Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors who conduct no business in Connecticut nor distribute the manufacturer’s products to, or in, Connecticut.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
State of Oklahoma v. Kepler Cert Petition [Request to Overrule McGirt]
Here:
Question presented:
Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
Lower court materials (Kepler v. State):
Oklahoma v. Bosse Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether a State may impose procedural or equitable bars to postconviction relief on the claim that the State lacked prosecutorial authority because the crime of conviction occurred in Indian country.
2. Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
3. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
Lower court materials here.
Tulsa Law Review Symposium on McGirt
Here:
Introduction
Mary Kathryn Nagle
The Past May Be Prologue, But It Does Not Dictate Our Future: This Is the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s Table
Jonodev Chaudhuri
Reflections on McGirt v. Oklahoma: A Case Team Perspective
Riyaz Kanji, David Giampetroni, and Philip Tinker
The Indian Treaty Canon and McGirt v. Oklahoma: Righting the Ship
Lauren King
A Wealth of Sovereign Choices: Tax Implications of McGirt v. Oklahoma and the Promise of Tribal Economic Development
Stacy Leeds and Lonnie Beard
The Sky Will Not Fall in Oklahoma
Clint Summers
Casenote/Comment
A Coherent Ethic of Lawyering in Post-McGirt Oklahoma
Julie Combs
Other
Reclaiming Our Reservation: Mvskoke Tvstvnvke Hoktvke Tuccenet (Etem) Opunayakes
Sarah Deer
WaPo: “Native voters are clearing hurdles. That’s why some politicians want to make them higher.”
Here.
Guy Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rohwer on the Voting Rights Case
Here is “The Court’s Voting-Rights Decision Was Worse Than People Think,” in the Atlantic.
Supreme Court Decides Brnovich v. DNC (voting rights)
On July 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court released a decision in Brnovich v. DNC that upheld two Arizona voting policies that make it harder for people—and especially people of color and Native Americans—to vote.
BACKGROUND:
On March 2, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The case looks at whether two issues of Arizona voting law—restricting out-of-precinct ballots and ballot collection—violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In 2016, Arizona lawmakers passed laws limiting ballot collection and out-of-precinct voting. Ballot collection is an essential tool that rural Native American communities use to make voting accessible to all eligible voters.
At about 17 minutes into the hearings, Justice Sotomayor addresses the voting burdens in Native communities. The points that Justice Sotomayor raises, echo those found in the National Congress of American Indians’ (NCAI) “friends of the court” amicus brief in the case. NCAI’s brief, which was filed by the Native American Rights Fund in January, explains how American Indian and Alaska Native voters face substantial obstacles and documented discrimination as they try to participate in the American democratic process.
Native Americans are entitled to full access to the political process, but failures rooted in devastating policies and discrimination create needless barriers to the ballot. Services such as post offices and drivers’ license sites require hours of travel, postal delivery and residential addressing is insufficient or completely absent, poorly maintained dirt roads become impassable during November election season, lack of internet and cell phone coverage abound on reservation, and insufficient economic means and transportation make it impossible to access basic government services. There also have been instances of untrustworthy election officials capitalizing on these inequities to disenfranchise voters and undermine Native American political power. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides much needed protections against this type of systemic voter disenfranchisement.
Read more about the barriers that Native American voters face in the report, Obstacles at Every Turn: Barriers to Political Participation Faced by Native American Voters.
SCOTUS Denies Cert in Two Indian Law Cases
Here is today’s order list.
Here are the cert petitions in the two denied cases, Phillips v. Oneida Indian Nation and Pierson v. Hudson Insurance Company (Pierson Cert Petition).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.