Supreme Court – Page 78

Alec L. v. McCarthy — Climate Change Cert Petition

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in support of the petition:

Alec L v McCarthy Cert Petition

Climate Scientists Amicus Brief

Law Profs Amicus Brief

Sisters of Mercy Amicus Brief

Harvard Law Review Comment on Michigan v. Bay Mills

November 13, 2014November 13, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is Leading Case: Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014).

An excerpt:

While the Court’s decision is a victory for those who feared the abrogation of tribal immunity, its suggestion that states seek remedies in state law signals approval of leaving the resolution of legal questions central to state-tribe disputes to the states, even when the question concerns the extent of Indian land. Such a view would be inconsistent with recent trends generally favoring greater federal control and congressional support for tribal self-determination, and could result in actions that are detrimental to tribes.

Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. New York Cert Petition

November 10, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

11-7-14 Stockbridge-Munsee Cert Petition_(filed)

Questions presented:

In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), this Court held that courts may not override Congress’ judgment and apply laches to summarily dispose of claims at law filed within a statute of limitations established by Congress, thereby foreclosing the possibility of any form of relief. Equitable remedies may be foreclosed at the litigation’s outset due to a delay in commencing suit only in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as the need to prevent unjust hardship on innocent third parties. Id. at 1978.

The question presented is: Where Petitioner’s claims were filed within the statutory-limitations period established by Congress, did the court of appeals contravene this Court’s
decision in Petrella by invoking delay-based equitable principles to summarily dismiss all of Petitioner’s federal treaty, statutory and common-law claims, including one for money damages as upheld by this Court in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 470 U.S. 226, 246 (1985)?

Lower court materials here. En banc petition materials here.

Menominee Tribe v. United States Cert Petition

November 7, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Menominee Indian Tribe Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied this Court’s Holland decision when it ruled – in direct conflict with a holding of the Federal Circuit on materially similar facts – that the Tribe did not face an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act?

Lower court materials here.

Buena Vista Rancheria Cert Opposition Brief

November 6, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Buena Vista Rancheria Opposition

The United States has waived its right to respond.

The cert petition is here.

D.C. Bar Assoc. Panel on Hobby Lobby and American Indian Religious Freedom

November 4, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Religious Freedoms of Native Americans Following the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision

Date & Time: Thursday, November 13, 2014 from 5:30pm to 7:30pm

CLE Credit: No

Event Description
“[T]he religious practices of the American Indian . . . are an integral part of their culture, tradition and heritage, such practices forming the basis of Indian identity and value systems.” 42 U.S.C. § 1996. As such, religious practice is the cornerstone of Native culture and has held Native communities together for centuries. Walter Echo- Hawk, Native Worship in American Prisons, 19.4 CULTURAL SURVIVAL Q. (Winter 1995). The federal government regulates the use of bald eagle parts and religious practices while incarcerated. The panel will explore the exercise of Native American religious practices after the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby.

The panelists will discuss the tensions between the federal government’s efforts to accommodate tribal religion and the dissatisfaction of the tribal community, recent case law developments and whether the federal government is providing the least restrictive means in furtherance of protecting eagles and maintaining prisons.

This evening program is sponsored by the Indian Law Committee of the Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Section, in cosponsorship with the Native American Bar Association-DC. Doors open at 5:00 p.m.

Location
Greenberg Traurig
2101 L Street, NW
Suite 1000
Washington DC 20037
Map it

Contact Information

Email: SectionsEvents@dcbar.org
Phone: 202-626-3463
Fax: 202-824-1877

Speakers

Professor Patty Ferguson-Bohnee, Arizona State University
Professor Kathryn Kovacs, Rutgers University
Joel Williams, Native American Rights Fund
Andrew Mergen, Department of Justice, Acting Chief Appellate Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division (Moderator)

MM&A Productions LLC v. Yavapai-Apache Nation Cert Petition

October 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

MM&A Cert Petition

Question presented:

This Court has an established jurisprudence recognizing Indian sovereign immunity, and defining its scope. The Court also has an established jurisprudence on what actions will work a waiver of immunity.

This Court, however, has never decided the issue of what needs to be shown to establish authority for waiver of Indian sovereign immunity, nor whether apparent authority can be sufficient to do so. Lower courts have done so, and are split on the question of the availability of apparent authority. E.g. Rush Creek Solutions, Inc. v. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 107 P.3d 402 (Colo. App. 2004) (apparent authority appropriately invoked); Memphis Biofuels, LLC v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc., 585 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2009) (prohibiting use of apparent authority).

The question presented is whether the authority of a tribal official who signs a waiver of sovereign immunity may be established under the doctrine of apparent authority.

Lower court materials here.