Here is the opinion in Gordon v. Lynch.
An excerpt:
Since Gordon faces only a remote risk of federal prosecution or civil penalties, and any further merits decision would not shield him from the effects of possible state or local lawsuits, the case is moot. We affirm the district court’s vacatur of the preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction, and we therefore do not reach the district court’s further conclusion that the case is prudentially moot.
Here is the AAA award in Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma:
an excerpt:
In 2014, the OTC sent an audit demand to the Nation questioning more than $27,000,000 of exemptions claimed on the Nation’s past sales tax reports. The Nation did not respond and declined to submit further sales tax reports. The OTC then filed and prosecuted an administrative complaint seeking to revoke all of the Nation’s alcoholic beverage permits relying on State law providing for revocation of any alcoholic beverage permit upon noncompliance with State tax laws. In its complaint, the OTC asserted for the first time that State sales taxes apply to all sales by an Indian Tribe to nontribal members.
Interesting negotiating strategy.
Commentary:
Justice Daniel J. Boudreau issued the attached arbitration award in Citizen Band Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma, No. 01-15-0003-3452 (AAA, April 4, 2016). The Award includes (i) a declaratory judgment that federal law protecting tribal sovereignty interests preempt and invalidate the State’s sales taxes on the Nation’s sales in question; and (ii) issues an injunction against the State from taking any further actions to divest the Nation’s Compact gaming facilities of the right to sell and serve alcoholic beverages or threaten enforcement actions against them on the ground that the Nation does not comply with the State’s sales tax laws. Justice Boudreau was the single arbitrator in this dispute.
The declaratory judgement applied the balancing test analysis in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) and other federal Indian law cases. Judge Boudreau held that the evidence established (i) significant federal and tribal interests in the Nation’s self-governance, economic self-sufficiency, and self-determination; (ii) the Nation alone invests value in the goods and services that it sells, does not derive value through an exemption from State sales taxes and imposed its own equivalent tribal tax on the sales; (iii) the State possesses no economic interest beyond a general quest for revenue in imposing a sales tax on the Nation’s transactions and suffers no uncompensated economic burden arising therefrom; and (iv) the federal and tribal interests at stake predominate significantly over any possible State interests in the transactions upon which the State seeks to impose its sales tax.
Here is the opinion in Cypress v. United States:
An excerpt:
This appeal arises out of a dispute between sixteen members of the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida (the “Tribe members”) and the United States, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Secretaries of the Treasury and of the Interior (collectively, “the Government”). The Tribe members seek declaratory relief to avoid paying federal income taxes on distributions, including gaming proceeds, paid out of the Tribe’s trust account. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for suits brought by individual Tribe members. The Tribe members now appeal the dismissal.
We agree with the district court that the Government did not waive sovereign immunity. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this matter.
Briefs here.
Here.
Here:
Seminole Tribe v. Stranburg Cert Petition
Question presented:
Florida imposes a tax on gross receipts from utility services that are delivered to retail customers. Under express statutory authority, utility providers may separately itemize this utility tax on a customer’s bill and add it to the total charge for utility services. If the utility provider does so, the customer is legally required to remit the tax to the utility provider, which then transfers the payment to the State. Here, petitioner is a federally recognized Indian tribe that has purchased utility services delivered to tribal reservations. Petitioner’s utility providers have exercised their statutory right to separately itemize the utility tax when billing the Tribe for such services.
The question presented is:
When a utility provider exercises a state-law right to expressly pass on a utility tax to a federally recognized Indian tribe for utility services delivered to the tribe’s reservations and the tribe is therefore legally obligated to pay the tax, is the tax an impermissible
direct tax on the tribe?
Lower court materials here.
There is still time to register for the CLE on the American Indian Probate Reform Act next Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This five-hour course will expose you to the principles, purposes, and implications of AIPRA with the last hour dedicated to the ethics of writing AIPRA-compliant wills.
Course instructors are:
Stephanie Hudson, Adjunct Clinical Professor for the Jodi Marquette American Indian Wills Clinic at Oklahoma City University School of Law
Gus Kerndt, Fiduciary Trust Officer with the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians in the Department of the Interior
Christine Zuni Cruz, Dickason Professor of Law at the University of New Mexico
The session will be held in the Auditorium at the New Mexico State Bar, 5121 Masthead St. N.E., Albuquerque, NM 87109. The charge for attendance is $350 for attorneys receiving 5 CLE credits (pending). Admission is free for law students, and others may attend for a nominal contribution to the Indian Land Tenure Foundation. Lunch is provided.
Click here to register for the event.
For one of the finest oral arguments of our time, and a very good thing for National NALSA moot court competitors to hear as they prep for the competition a few weeks away, check out Bill Rice arguing before the Supreme Court, beginning at about 34:20:
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.