Supreme Court

Seattle Human Rights Commission Letter on Culverts Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Seattle Human Rights Commission Culvert_OpEd

An excerpt:

The Seattle Human Rights Commission writes in response to the Seattle Times recent editorial “The Supreme Court must clarify culvert ruling,” and seeks to correct inaccuracies regarding tribal treaty rights and the State’s obligation to not impair them. Washington’s tribal nations have lived and fished throughout our State since time immemorial, and their right to do so is protected by treaty. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an exhaustive and well researched opinion, recognized that this right requires the removal of culverts that block fish passage. The State’s decision to seek Supreme Court review of that decision reflects revisionist and troubling effort to weaken treaty rights.

Federal Court Declines to Stay Mandate in Effort to Condemn Navajo Lands Saying Utility Loses Even if SCOTUS Reverses

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Public Service Company of New Mexico v. Approximately 15.49 Acres of Land in McKinley County (D.N.M.):

142 Motion to Confirm Stay Order

143 Response

145 Reply

147 DCT Order

Prior posts here.

Alaska v. Ross Cert Stage Materials (ESA Seal Listing)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

AFN Amicus Brief

Fed Cert Opp

Alaska Reply

Town of Vernon v. United States Cert Stage Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether a tribe that opted out of the Indian Reorganization Act can have its status under the Act revived under the Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2202, even though the United States did not hold land in trust for that tribe at the time the tribe sought a land-in-trust acquisition.

2. Whether the land-in-trust provision of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5108, exceeds Congress’ authority under the Indian Commerce Clause, Art. I, § S, cl. 3.

3. Whether § 5108’s standardless delegation of authority to acquire land “for Indians” is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

4. Whether the federal government’s control over state land must be categorically exclusive for the Enclave Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, to prohibit the removal of that land from state jurisdiction.

US Cert Opp Brief

Great Plains Lending v. Consumer Financial Protection Board Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether a generally applicable federal statute, which is silent as to its applicability to Indian Tribes, should nevertheless be presumed to apply to Tribes.

Lower court materials here.

 UPDATE:

Town of Aquinnah v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Town of Aquinnah’s Cert Petition 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a statute of general application, impliedly repealed other federal statutes that specifically subject Indian tribes to state restrictions on gaming, a question that has divided the courts of appeals.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

Aquinnah Cert Opp

Reply

French v. Starr Cert Petition (+ Cert Opp)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Cert Petition

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Cert Opp

Reply

Patchak v. Zinke Background Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the merits briefs:

Patchak Merits Brief

Joint Appendix

US Merits Brief

Gun Lake Merits Brief

Patchak Merits Reply

Here are the amicus briefs:

Federal Courts Scholars Brief in Support of Petitioners

Fed. Cts. and Indian Law Scholars in Support of Respondents

Brief Amici Curiae of Wayland Township, et al. in Support of Respondents

Brief for the U.S. House of Representatives as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents

Brief Amicus Curiae of National Congress of American Indians in Support of Respondents

Brief Amicus Curiae of Professor Edward A Hartnett in Support of Respondents

Here are the cert stage briefs:

Patchak Cert Petition

Federal Cert Opp

Gun Lake Cert Opp

Patchak Reply

Here are the D.C. Circuit materials:

Opinion

Patchak Opening Brief

Tribe Response Brief

US Response Brief

Patchak Reply Brief

District court materials:

Patchak v Jewell – Gun Lake Tribe (Judge Leon Opinion)

78 Gun Lake Tribe Motion for Summary J

80-1 Patchak Motion for Summary J

85 US Opposition

86 Gun Lake Tribe Opposition

87 Patchak Opposition to Gun Lake Tribe Motion

88 Gun Lake Tribe Reply

90 Patchak Reply

Legislative materials:

Senate Hearing

House Report

Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act

Hackford v. Utah Cert Petition (Ute Reservation Boundaries)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Hackford v Utah Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Acts of Congress, authorizing the President to set apart and reserve any reservoir site or other lands necessary to conserve and protect the water supply for the Indians or for general agricultural development, diminished the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.

2. Whether as used in 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a), the term “Indian Country” includes the National Forest land, and the right of way running through the National Forest lands where the alleged criminal conduct occurred, for purpose of federal criminal jurisdiction.

Lower court materials here.

Water District Files Cert Petition in Agua Caliente Water Rights Matter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the petition in Coachella Valley Water District v. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians:

Coachella Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether, when, and to what extent the federal reserved right doctrine recognized in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), preempts state-law regulation of groundwater.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE (8/14/17):

17-40 -42 Agua Caliente Amicus Brief