Supreme Court
Amicus Briefs in Support of Cert Petition in Sac & Fox Nation v. Borough of Jim Thorpe
Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Background Materials
In anticipation of the briefing of Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Supreme Court’s next foray in tribal civil jurisdiction, we provide some background materials on the cases and tribal civil jurisdiction in general.
SCOTUS Grants Cert in Menominee Tribe v. United States
Here is the order list. From the order list:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the D. C. Circuit misapplied this Court’s Holland decision when it ruled that the Tribe was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act?
Slate: Scalia “Sick Burn” Generator
Here.
Supreme Court Grants Cert in Dollar General
Despite the SG’s brief recommending otherwise–order list here.
Previous coverage here.
From the original cert petition by Dollar General:
In this case, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit held that tribal courts do have that jurisdiction. Five judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The case accordingly presents the issue the Court left open in Hicks and the Question the Court granted certiorari to decide in Plains Commerce:
Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members?
Sac and Fox Nation v. Borough of Jim Thorpe Cert Petition
Here:
Thorpe Petition and Appendix (00059355)
Question presented:
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) applies to “any” institution or state or local government agency that receives federal funds and “has possession of, or control over,” Native American human remains. The Act requires these covered entities to inventory those remains and, at the request of Native American tribes or lineal descendants, to return them.
The question presented is whether the absurdity doctrine allows courts to exempt otherwise covered entities from NAGPRA based on how the entity acquired the Native American remains.
Lower court materials here.
News coverage here. Thanks to MKN.
United States Recommends Certiorari Grant in Menominee Tribe v. United States
Here is the government’s brief:
An excerpt:
The court of appeals correctly held that neither the Tribe’s erroneous prediction of the outcome of litigation, nor its expectation that the government would deny its administrative claims, warrants equitable tolling of the CDA’s six-year limitations period. That decision, however, squarely conflicts with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arctic Slope Native Ass’n v. Sebelius, 699 F .3d 1289 (2012), which found tolling appropriate on materially similar facts. In the government’s view, certiorari is warranted.
Cert petition is here.
Lower court materials here.
State of Nebraska v. Parker Cert Petition
Here:
State of Nebraska v Parker cert petition
Questions presented:
In Solem v. Bartlett, the Court articulated a three-part analysis designed to evaluate whether a surplus land act may have resulted in a diminishment of a federal Indian reservation. See 465 U.S. 463, 470-72 (1984). The Court found that the “statutory language used to open the Indian lands,” “events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act,” and “events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act” are all relevant to determining whether diminishment has occurred.
The questions presented by the petition are:1. Whether ambiguous evidence concerning the first two Solem factors necessarily forecloses any possibility that diminishment could be found on a de facto basis.
2. Whether the original boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation were diminished following passage of the Act of August 7, 1882.
Lower court materials here.
Tribes and Same-Sex Marriage in Columbia Human Rights Law Review
My article on tribal laws relating to same-sex marriage has just been published in Columbia Human Rights Law Review. It delves into the twelve tribal laws that allow same-sex marriage and also looks at tribal DOMAs, tribal domestic partnership laws, and other tribal laws that bear on same-sex marriage. Finally, it addresses the somewhat limited effects Windsor and the future Supreme Court decision in Obergefell are likely to have on tribal DOMAs.
Thanks to everyone who provided information on tribal laws. I couldn’t have done it without you!
You must be logged in to post a comment.