Cert Opposition Briefs Filed in In re Alexandria P. SCOTUS Petition

Briefs are here.

Case page is here.

This is the case out of the California Court of Appeals (California Supreme Court denied review) that garnered a lot of media attention regarding the change in placement of a Choctaw girl in foster care so she could go live with her relatives.

New Book: Dewi Ball’s Study of Indian Law and the SCT Justices’ Papers

Dewi Ione Ball has published “The Erosion of Tribal Power: The Supreme Court’s Silent Revolution” with the University of Oklahoma Press.

Here is the book page.

Here is the blurb:

For the past 180 years, the inherent power of indigenous tribes to govern themselves has been a central tenet of federal Indian law. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s repeated confirmation of Native sovereignty since the early 1830s, it has, in the past half-century, incrementally curtailed the power of tribes to govern non-Indians on Indian reservations. The result, Dewi Ioan Ball argues, has been a “silent revolution,” mounted by particular justices so gradually and quietly that the significance of the Court’s rulings has largely evaded public scrutiny.

Ball begins his examination of the erosion of tribal sovereignty by reviewing the so-called Marshall trilogy, the three cases that established two fundamental principles: tribal sovereignty and the power of Congress to protect Indian tribes from the encroachment of state law. Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has remained faithful to these principles, Ball shows. Beginning with Williams v. Lee, a 1959 case that highlighted the tenuous position of Native legal authority over reservation lands and their residents, Ball analyzes multiple key cases, demonstrating how the Supreme Court’s decisions weakened the criminal, civil, and taxation authority of tribal nations. During an era when many tribes were strengthening their economies and preserving their cultural identities, the high court was undermining sovereignty. In Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley (2001) and Nevada v. Hicks (2001), for example, the Court all but obliterated tribal authority over non-Indians on Native land.

By drawing on the private papers of Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, William O. Douglas, Lewis F. Powell Jr., and Hugo L. Black, Ball offers crucial insight into federal Indian law from the perspective of the justices themselves. The Erosion of Tribal Power shines much-needed light on crucial changes to federal Indian law between 1959 and 2001 and discusses how tribes have dealt with the political and economic consequences of the Court’s decisions.

Respondent’s Brief in Lewis v. Clarke

Download(PDF): Brief for Respondent

Link: Lewis v. Clarke tag archive

Meyers v. Wisconsin Oneida Cert Petition — Another Immunity Case

Here is the petition in Meyers v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin:

Cert petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether Congress abrogated the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe under 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., by providing that “any…government” may be liable for damages.
2. Whether an individual who receives a computer generated cash register receipt displaying more than the last five digits of the individual’s credit card number and the card’s expiration date has suffered a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Lower court materials here.

Alaska Federation of Natives Files Cert Stage Amicus Brief in Polar Bear Case

Here is the brief filed in Alaska v. Jewell:

afn-amicus-brief

Here are the cert petitions:

alaska-cert-petition

alaska-oil-gas-assn-cert-petition

Trump (I Think) is Crowd-Sourcing His Supreme Court Justice Nominee

Here is the May 18 shortlist. Here is yesterday’s list. There is some overlap but there is a new list post-election.

If you look around, you’ll see some profiles of the potential nominees (kinda) advocating for that person. Here are some examples of profiles of some of the more moderate candidates: Bloomberg profiled Joan Larsen; Allison Eid profiled here. Given the emphasis of the presumptive President-Elect on media, it seems plausible if not downright likely that the nominee will be the person that will generate the most attention on TV. Perhaps that means if none of these potential candidates generate enough media excitement (and yes that includes intense controversy) then we might not see any of them nominated. (Former?) #NeverTrump-er Don Willett (profiled here) might be the best bet because he is already an internet star (in legal circles anyway).

For all we know today, the presumptive President-Elect is trolling Dems (and maybe some Rs) to learn which of the people on the shortlist is most offensive, and therefore generates the most controversy and media attention.

SCOTUS to Hear Lewis v. Clarke on January 9, 2017

Here is the Court’s January calendar.

Background materials on the case here.

Cert Denied in Oklevueha Native American Church v. Lynch

Here is today’s order list.

Lower court materials here.

US Seeks Reversal in Lewis v. Clarke (Different Theory than Petitioners)

Here is that brief:

SG Brief

Here is another amicus brief supporting petitioner:

Conn. Trial Lawyers Assn. Amicus Brief

The background materials are here.

American Indian Organizations Brief in Lee v. Tam

Here:

tribal-brief-in-lee-v-tam

fred-t-korematsu-center-for-law-and-equality-brief