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
taxation
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.
Gaming Compact dispute, sales tax and liquor disputes between the Citizen Potawatomi Nation and the State of Oklahoma
Here are the materials in In re Revocation of Licenses/Permits of Citizen Potawatomi Nation (Okla. Tax Commission):
Stipulations-filed with exhibits
Thurston County Tax Assessment on CTGW LLC Vacated
Here is the order:
An excerpt:
The pivotal question before the board at hearing was whether CTGW, LLC is an arm of the tribe such that it might be per se exempt from assessment and taxation on “un-attached business personal property located at Great Wolf Lodge.” See Galanda Decl. Exhibit H -01 (Quotation from February 11, 2014 letter from Thurston County Treasurer Shawn· Myers to David Burnett, President, CTGW, LLC). As explained below, the Board finds that CTGW, LLC is exempt from all assessments and taxes on the un-attached business personal property used exclusively on tribal trust land and that the taxable assessment for each year subject to a petition must be reduced to zero.
National Intertribal Tax Alliance Amicus Materials in Agua Caliente v. Riverside County (Part 162 Leasing Regs)
From NITA:
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County, et al, 5:14-cv-00007-DMG-DBT (United States District Court, Central District of California). The Aqua Caliente Tribe filed this civil action against Riverside County to stop the collection of taxes on Indian land leaseholders. The Desert Water Agency intervened in this action. Riverside County collects possessory interest taxes from Indian land leaseholders and then redistributes much of the money to cities, schools and other local governments. The Tribe has long viewed as this tax as illegal and views these possessory interest taxes as an unlawful infringement on Tribal sovereignty rights. The action was filed January 2, 2014 and is set for trial on June 16, 2015.
Here are the materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County (C.D. Cal.):
NITA_Request_to_File_Amicus_and_Brief
Opposition_to_File_Amicus_Desert_Water
NITA Post-Conference Wrap-Up
Here (PDF):
NATIONAL INTERTRIBAL TAX ALLIANCE WRAPS UP ITS 16TH ANNUAL TAX CONFERENCE – SEPTEMBER 24-15, 2014 – Harrah’s Resort Southern California (Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians), Valley Center, California
VALLEY CENTER, CA October 1, 2014– The National Intertribal Tax Alliance (NITA) wrapped up its 16th Annual conference, September 24-25, 2014 hosted and sponsored by the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians and held at their fabulous and newly-renovated Hotel and Casino in Valley Center, California just northeast of San Diego. NITA is the foremost Native organization focusing on tribal taxation issues for tribal governments and tribal enterprises. This year’s well-attended conference included many “hot topic” tribal taxation issues facing tribes in Indian Country today.
Rincon Band Chairman Bo Mazzetti welcomed attendees, followed by an Opening Prayer by Council Member, Laurie Gonzalez. Past NITA Board Chairperson, Mary Mashunkashey gave the Opening remarks thanking all the speakers and conferees for their participation emphasizing the importance of NITA’s conferences as vital element to the mission and objectives in assisting and disseminating information on current tribal tax issues to tribes and tribal tax commissions which affects many aspects of tribal sovereignty.
Headlining this year’s Conference was Keynote Speaker Matthew Fletcher, Professor of Law at Michigan State University College of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center. Professor Fletcher is also primary editor of the popular Indian law blog, “Turtle Talk.” (https://turtletalk.wordpress.com). Professor Fletcher delivered an intriguing and thought-proving address focusing on “Rights Without Remedies” regarding court decisions affecting tribal sovereign immunity in various court cases where the right of a state under federal Indian law was unenforceable against an Indian tribe due to sovereign immunity. His keynote explains the court’s reaffirmation of the “clear statement rule.” He states “the clear statement rule recognizes that Congress has plenary authority to regulate tribal governance authority, but also that Congress retains a general trust responsibility to Indian nations and Indian people, requiring Congress to make clear, plain and express any intent to restrict tribal authority.” Professor Fletcher went on to explain different areas of tribal authority and the Legislative arena emphasizing that “Congress might pay more attention this time.” Professor Fletcher’s paper is contained in the Conference booklet available on the NITA website (see below for link.)
Cert Petition in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida Dept. of Revenue
Here:
Here is the question presented:
This Court established in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), that a plaintiff may sue state officials for prospective injunctive relief against the enforcement of an unconstitutional state law. In the intervening years, this Court and most courts of appeals have repeatedly held that Ex parte Young allows federal courts to enjoin the future enforcement of state tax schemes that violate federal law or the Constitution. This Court has also observed that an injunction requiring a state’s future compliance with federal law does not violate state sovereign immunity, even if it has a “substantial ancillary effect on the state treasury.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 278 (1986).
In this case, however, the Eleventh Circuit concluded otherwise. It departed from this Court’s precedent, and “create[d] a circuit split,” Pet. App. 24a (Jordan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), when it held that Ex parte Young does not permit the Seminole Tribe of Florida to seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the future unconstitutional enforcement of Florida’s fuel tax scheme. The court’s holding turned on the fact that Florida precollects this tax from a third party, which means that an order barring future enforcement against the tribes might require the state to issue tribal consumers refunds “from state coffers,” supposedly in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. Pet. App. 12a.
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.
More Pics from National Intertribal Tax Alliance Meeting
The NITA Board:
Audience pics:
Fletcher again
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.