Here is the petition in South Point Energy Center LLC v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue:
Lower court materials here.
South Point Energy v. Arizona DOR Cert Petition
Supreme Court
SCOTUS Denies Bibeau v. Commissioner
Order list here.
Just goes to show that there really is no opportunity for Indian people or tribal nations to persuade the federal judiciary to correct its past mistakes. There is no room for long-term litigation strategies.
Petition here.
Lexington Insurance Co. v. Mueller Cert Petition [Cabazon]
Lexington Insurance Co. v. Suquamish Tribe Cert Petition
Stanford Law Review Symposium— “Promises of Sovereignty: A Quarter Century of Federal Indian Law in the Supreme Court” [Feb. 21-22, 2025]
Here.
Bibeau v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Cert Petition
Tribal Amicus Brief in FCC v. Consumers’ Research [SCOTUS]
SCT Amicus Brief in Voting Rights Case
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland Cert Petition [all cert stage briefs]
Here:
Questions presented:
The Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (“MILCSA”) established a Self-Sufficiency Fund for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians to receive judgment funds that settled claims against the United States for the unconscionable taking of tribal lands. The statute, which codified a negotiated agreement between the Tribe and the United States, gave the Tribe’s Board of Directors exclusive authority over the Self-Sufficiency Fund, including determinations about the proper use of Fund capital and interest. The broad purposes for which the Tribe may expend Fund interest under MILCSA include the “enhancement of tribal lands.” §108(c)(5). And MILCSA requires the Secretary of the Interior to hold in trust “[a]ny lands” acquired with Fund interest. §108(f). The questions presented are:
- Whether Congress delegated to the Department of the Interior under MILCSA the authority to reject a mandatory trust submission based on the agency’s own view about whether the purchase of land satisfied §108(c), notwithstanding the statutory command that “[a]ny lands acquired using amounts from interest or other income of the [Tribe’s] Self-Sufficiency Fund shall be held in trust by the Secretary [of the Interior] for the benefit of the tribe.” §108(f).
- Whether “enhancement of tribal lands” in §108(c)(5) of MILCSA includes a land acquisition that adds to or augments the size of the Tribe’s total landholdings.
Lower court materials here.
Additional briefs:
Ho-Chunk Inc. Cert Petition in Tax Dispute with Nebraska
Here is the petition in HCI Distribution Inc. v. Hilgers:
Questions presented:
I. Under this Court’s decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), may a state directly regulate commerce between tribal economic development entities on the tribe’s own reservation lands without a showing of exceptional circumstances?
II. In conducting the balancing test under White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), may a court discount a tribe’s interests in self-determination and self-sufficiency based upon the court’s view of the significance of the tribe’s economic development activities?
III. Did the Eighth Circuit’s modification of the District Court’s injunction effectively rewrite Nebraska’s escrow and bond statutes, substituting the court’s decision for that of the state legislature, in violation of the standards set forth in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006) and other precedents of this Court?
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.