Here is Monday’s order list.
The petition was Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation: petition and opposition briefs.

Here is Monday’s order list.
The petition was Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation: petition and opposition briefs.

Sarah Crawford, Reneau J. Longoria and Heather Whiteman Runs Him have published “Decisions Impacting Indian Country in the 2023 Supreme Court Term” in the Montana Lawyer.

Here are the materials in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland:
Order Denying Stay + Kavanaugh Statement
Lower court materials here.

Here.
Tentative Agenda
Noon to 1 p.m.: The Impacts of the Brackeen Decision Moving Forward –
1 to 2 p.m.: How the Brackeen Decision and the Recently Passed Montana ICWA Statute Will Impact Practitioners in Montana.
Speakers
Professor Matthew Fletcher: Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law the University of Michigan Law School
Kimberly Cluff: California Tribal Family Coalition
Kelly Driscoll: Montana Office of the State Public Defender, Missoula
April Olson: Rothstein Donatelli, Tempe, Arizona


Here:
The Connecticut Law Review invites you to their 2023 symposium: Interrogating Haaland v. Brackeen: Family Regulation, Constitutional Power, and Tribal Resilience The litigation that led to Haaland v. Brackeen threatened to take down not only the Indian Child Welfare Act, but vast swaths of federal Indian policy and federal law. Instead, the Supreme Court’s decision left ICWA unscathed and affirmed the constitutional relationship between tribal nations and the United States. But threats to Native families and tribal sovereignty continue. Native children continue to be removed from their communities by a market for adoptable children. A handful of states and interest groups continue to seek ways to challenge tribal authority and federal laws that support it. And because the Supreme Court held that the Brackeen plaintiffs lacked standing to raise their equal protection challenges to ICWA, those claims can be raised another day. Leading scholars, attorneys, and tribal leaders will explore these and other issues raised by the decision in this symposium.
Here is the petition in Beccera v. Northern Arapaho Tribe:
Question presented:
Whether IHS must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition in Beccera v. San Carlos Apache Tribe:
The question presented is the same in both cases.
Lower court materials here.

You must be logged in to post a comment.