SCOTUS Denies Village of Hobart v. Oneida Indian Nation

Order list here.

Cert petition here. Cert opp briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

Seminole Tribe Complaint Dismissed by 11th Circuit in Revenue Case

Decision here.

Briefs here.

Lower court briefs and decision here.

For various reasons, this might be a good case for en banc review by the 11th Circuit. First, one of the three judges deciding this was from the D.C. district court, sitting by designation. Second, the decision is based on an issue not briefed (which leads to a broader research question we have about federal Indian law generally–how often this happens). Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Court’s analysis of Ex Parte Young an issue of broader, national, concern.

The Court’s issues with equitable relief, and characterizing the relief should the Tribe win as a continued “damages” against the state because of the state’s collection regime is strange.

A declaratory judgment exempting the Tribe from the tax is the functional equivalent of ordering recurring payments of money damages. The Tribe points to no other way around the alleged constitutional violation other than a recurring refund paid to the Tribe from the Department after it precollects the tax from the fuel suppliers.

***

Unlike the tax regimes in those appeals, the only relief available to the Tribe under Florida law is a refund of taxes it will already have paid, and state sovereign immunity bars that relief. See Ford Motor Co., 323 U.S. at 463–64, 65 S. Ct. at 350.

As Judge Jordan in the dissent writes:

The majority’s opinion, as I read it, apparently would allow a state to shield the enforcement of any tax, no matter how constitutionally untenable, from challenge in federal court simply by enacting a precollection procedure.

 

Cert Opposition Briefs in Village of Hobart v. Wisconsin Oneida

Here:

US Opposition Brief

Tribe Opposition Brief

Petition is here.

Lower court materials here.

Puyallup Prevails over IRS in Dispute over Levy Notice Seeking Per Capital Payments

Here are the materials in United States v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians (W.D. Wash.):

20 US Cross Motion for Summary J

21 Puyallup Cross Motion for Summary J

22 US Response

23 Puyallup Response

24 DCT Order Granting Tribe’s Motion

An excerpt:

The Government contends that, based on custom and practice, the per capita payments were fixed and determinable. The Government admits that “this is a matter of first impression” (Dkt. 22 at 16), and the Court declines to adopt the Government’s proposition that the rule that levies may attach to discretionary, yet customary payments. Just like there is no guarantee that a subsequent deposit will be made to a levied bank account, there is no guarantee that Turnipseed will receive another per capita payment. While the Tribe strives to provide for its members, it still makes a discretionary monthly decision whether it shall do so. Moreover, the fact that a payment is likely is the same as classifying a sale of personal property as likely. But, according to the regulations, a levy cannot attach until the individual has actually sold the item. Therefore, the Court concludes that the levies in question did not attach to Turnipseed’s per capita payments.

SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day: Native Wholesale Supply v. Idaho

Here.

From SCOTUSblog:

13-838

Issue: (1) Whether under circumstances in which a state is admittedly precluded from regulating an Indian it is also precluded from regulating a corporation wholly owned by an Indian and organized under the laws of a federally recognized tribe; (2) whether, under a state law that purports to give the attorney general power to “approve” all cigarettes before they may be imported into Idaho, the State of Idaho can prohibit an Indian-owned business on the Coeur d’Alene reservation from importing into that reservation cigarettes that are sold “FOB Seneca Nation” by a company wholly owned by a member of the Seneca Nation and licensed by the Seneca Nation to carry on such trade; (3) whether the State of Idaho’s cigarette-sale statutes are preempted to the extent that they are enforced in a manner that prohibits Native Wholesale Supply Company (“NWS”) from trading with Warpath Inc. (“Warpath”); and (4) whether the State of Idaho can constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over NWS, an Indian-chartered entity located on Seneca Nation of Indians Land, situated within the geographic boundaries of the State of New York, where NWS sells the tobacco products “FOB Seneca Nation” to Warpath, and the products are then transported to Warpath’s place of business on the Coeur d’Alene reservation.

Supreme Court Declines to Review Old Section 81 Appeal

The Court declined to review Quantum Entertainment Ltd. v. Dept. of Interior. Order list here.

Lower court materials here.

Cert stage briefs:

Quantum Entertainment Cert Petition

USA Cert Opp

Quantum Reply

 

Final Wash. Dept. of Revenue Tax Advisory on Permanent Improvements on Tribal Trust Land

Here:

FAQs – Improvements on Trust Land

PTA Improvements on Tribal Trust Land Final

Interim guidance was here.

Wash. Dept. of Revenue Draft Property Tax Advisory re: Great Wolf Case

Here:

PTA Improvements on Tribal Trust Land

An excerpt:

Question: May state and local governments assess property tax on permanent improvements built on land owned by the United States and held in trust for an Indian tribe?

Answer: No. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined in Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County Board of Equalization, 724 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2013) that where the United States owns land covered by 25 U.S.C. § 465 and holds it in trust for the use of a tribe, permanent improvements on that land are exempt from state and local property taxation.

Order Approving Oneida/NYS Settlement Agreement and Dismissing Interventions — UPDATED

Here is the order approving the settlement agreement between the Oneida Indian Nation and the State of New York, and dismissing both the Cayuga Nation and Stockbridge-Munsee Community’s motions for intervention.

UPDATE — briefs are here:

280-2 Cayuga Motion to Intervene

288 Oneida Response to CN Motion

289 Interior Response to CN Motion

290 NY Response to CN Motion

293 Cayuga Reply

300 MJ R&R Recommending Grant of CN Motion

303-1 Stockbridge-Munsee Motion to Intervene

312 NY Plaintiffs Objection to R&R

313 Oneida Objection to R&R

319 Settlement and Stipulation

326 NY Plaintiffs Response to SMC Motion

327 Oneida Response to SMC Motion

329 Interior Response to SMC Motion

332 Stockbridge Munsee Reply

344 Interior ROD Amendment

Chehalis Tribes Win $22K+ in Costs from Thurston County in Tax Dispute

Here:

doc. 220 Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs

doc. 222 Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs

doc. 226 Reply re Motion for Costs

doc. 228 Taxation of Costs