Here:
Lower court materials here.
taxation
Student Scholarship on Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard
The Connecticut Law Review has published “Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard: The Preemption of State Taxes Under Bracker, the Indian Trader Statutes, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.” It is here on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
The Indian Tribes of the United States occupy an often ambiguous place in our legal system, and nowhere is that ambiguity more pronounced than in the realm of state taxation. States are, for the most part, preempted from taxing the Indian Tribes, but something unique happens when the state attempts to levy a tax on non-Indian vendors employed by a Tribe for work on a reservation. The state certainly has a significant justification for imposing its tax on non-Indians, but at what point does the non-Indian vendor’s relationship with the Tribe impede the state’s right to tax? What happens when the taxed activity is a sale to the Tribe? And what does it mean when the taxed activity has connections to Indian Gaming?
This Comment explores three preemption standards as they were interpreted by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a case between the State of Connecticut and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. In deciding whether preemption was the legally required outcome, the Court looked to and applied the landmark preemption analysis case White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, the Indian Trader Statutes, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. While more than one legally correct outcome exists in this case, this Comment endorses and argues in favor of preemption based on the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the preemption analysis required by Bracker.
Materials in PACT Act & CCTA Claim in New York
Here are the materials in State of New York v. King Mountain Tobacco Co. (E.D. N.Y.):
Seminole Tribe v. Fla. Dept. of Revenue is SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day
Here.
SCOTUS Rejects Seneca County’s Effort to File Cert Petition Out of Time
Cert Stage Briefs in Seminole Tribe v. Florida Dept. of Revenue
Here:
Question presented:
The question presented is whether sovereign immunity bars an American Indian tribe from seeking Ex parte Young relief from the unconstitutional enforcement of a state tax scheme merely because that relief might require refunds for taxes unlawfully collected in the future.
Lower court materials and my commentary here.
Eleventh Circuit Briefs and Updated Materials in IRS Subpoena Controversy with Miccosukee
Here are the appellate materials in United States v. Billie:
District court materials:
19 Miccosukee Response to Summons
26 DCT Order Enforcing Subpoena
34 DCT Order Denying Motion for Stay
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Sues South Dakota over Taxes and Casino Regulation
Here is the complaint in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (D. S.D.):
An excerpt:
1. This action seeks a judgment declaring that, under federal law, the State of South Dakota does not have authority to impose its use tax on the use, storage or consumption, by nonmembers of the Tribe, on the Tribe’s reservation, of goods and services purchased by nonmembers from the Tribe at the Tribe’s gaming facility, which is operated pursuant to and in accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, (the “Tribe’s gaming facility” or the “Tribe’s Casino Complex”) and that the State lacks authority to require the Tribe to collect such use taxes from such non-member patrons and remit such taxes to the State.
2. This action also seeks a declaratory judgment that federal law prohibits the State of South Dakota from refusing to reissue alcoholic beverage licenses to the Tribe for the Tribe’s gaming facility on the basis that the Tribe has failed to remit to the Department of Revenue “all use tax incurred by nonmembers as a result of the operation of the licensed premises, and any other state tax.” SDCL § 35-2-24.
3. This action also seeks a declaratory judgment that pursuant to IGRA, the State of South Dakota does not have authority to regulate the Tribe’s sale of alcoholic beverages at the Tribe’s gaming facility.
Other materials:
Washington State Tax Board Declares Chehalis Tribe’s CTGW LLC Exempt from “Removable” Personal Property Taxation
New Scholarship Condemning the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement for Selling Out Indian Nations
Ryan D. Dreveskracht has posted his new paper, “Forfeiting Federalism: The Faustian Pact with Big Tobacco,” (PDF) just published in the Richmond Journal of Law and Public Interest.
Here is the abstract:
This article discusses the effects of the largest legal settlement in United States history: the so-called Master Settlement Agreement, or “MSA.” Part I discusses the settlement generally, and its intended effect on the U.S. tobacco market. Parts II through IV discuss the unintended consequences of the settlement. Specifically, Part II considers how states got into their current disarray, and how a perceived state windfall of billions of dollars ended up putting states on what by all accounts now appears to be very real risk of insolvency. Part III examines how the major tobacco companies are using the states’ dire financial condition to stifle tribal sovereignty and Indian industry. Part IV analyzes the federal government’s role in similar oppressive tactics. The concluding section suggests lessons that might be learned from the MSA.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.