Big Sandy Cert Petition in Tax Case

Here is the petition in Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Bonta:

Questions presented:

1. Whether an Indian tribe incorporated by federal charter under section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. § 5124) is an “Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior” authorized to bring suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1362.

2. Whether the Indian Trader Statutes (25 U.S.C. §§ 261-263) or the Bracker balancing test (see White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980)) preempts the State of California’s regulation of intertribal cigarette sales, where an Indian tribe sells tribally manufactured cigarettes to Indian tribal buyers on their home reservations.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

California BIO

Reply

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Miccosukee Member’s Challenge to Federal Income Taxes on Per Capita Payments

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage materials in Clay v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in in Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage materials.

Seventh Circuit Materials in Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Evers

Here:

Tribe Brief

State Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

California COA (again) Permits Tax on Leased Allotments

Here are the materials in Albrecht v. County of Riverside (Cal. Ct. App.):

Opinion

Opening Brief

Desert Water Agency Brief

County of Riverside Brief

Coachella Water District Brief

Reply

Related decision (and why we said “again”) here.

Grand River Six Nations Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton Cert Petition

Here:

GRE Six Nations Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether Connecticut impermissibly regulates or controls conduct beyond the boundaries of the State in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors doing no business in Connecticut and having no nexus with Connecticut.

2. Whether Connecticut violates Due Process protections when it bans a manufacturer’s products from being sold in the state, if the manufacturer fails to obtain and provide to Connecticut private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors relating to their distribution of products in jurisdictions other than Connecticut.

3. Whether Connecticut violates the Supremacy Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors who conduct no business in Connecticut nor distribute the manufacturer’s products to, or in, Connecticut.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Boughton BIO

Reply

Clay v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [Federal Taxes on Gaming Per Capita Payments]

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

The question presented is: Whether the clear language of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the exclusive authority over federally recognized Indian Tribes granted to the Secretary of Interior under 25 U.S.C. § 2, controls the determination of how the Miccosukee Tribe compensates its members for the use of their lands, to the exclusion of any other federal agency, including the Internal Revenue Service.

Lower court materials here.

California COA Rejects Allottees’ Claim to Tax Exemption from Riverside County

Here is the unpublished opinion in Albrecht v. County of Riverside:

Briefs:

Opening Brief

County Brief

Coachella Water District Brief

Desert Water Agency Brief

Reply

New York Appellate Division Concludes State Cannot Tax Unstamped Smokes Confiscated During an Illegal Search by Police

Here is the opinion in In the Matter of White v. State of New York Tax Appeals Tribunal (N.Y. A.D.):

530088_pdf

Michigan (“largely”) Prevails over Keweenaw Bay Indian Community on Sales and Use Taxes

Here are the updated materials in Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Khouri (W.D. Mich.):

317 Michigan MSJ

328 KBIC MSJ

365 Michigan Response to 328

370 KBIC Response to 317

376 Michigan Reply

377 KBIC Reply

421 DCT Order re State Prosecutions

422 DCT Order re Protective Order

423 DCT Order

Prior post here.