Here are the new materials in Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard (2d Cir.):
Amicus Brief in Support of En Banc Petition — Seminole, Umatilla, and Coquille
Panel decision and briefs are here.
taxation
Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Cert Petition in Challenge to Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement
Here is the petition in Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Pruitt:
And the questions presented:
1. Whether this Court’s precedents establish that the State of Oklahoma (along with 45 other States and various U.S. territories with similar statutes) can impose escrow obligations on certain cigarette manufacturers based partly on sales by Indian tribes to tribal members in Indian country.
2. Whether the Oklahoma Escrow Statute, as interpreted by the state courts in this case, violates federal law by imposing escrow obligations on certain cigarette manufacturers — including Indian-owned businesses operating on reservation lands mbased partly on sales by Indian tribes to tribal members in Indian country.
Update:
H.R. 3043: Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act of 2013
Thurston County Files En Banc Petition in Ninth Circuit Appeal
Update in Chehalis v. Thurston County
Here are additional materials relating to a motion for clarification by the county:
Panel decision materials here.
Federal Indictment of 18 Individuals for Smuggling Smokes to Seneca Cayuga Tobacco, Ho-Chunk Inc., Etc.
Here is the indictment in United States v. Sheffler (W.D. Mo.):
News coverage here.
Miccosukee Sues United States, Claiming Illegal Tax Audits and Trust Breach
Here is the complaint in Miccosukee Tribe v. United States (S.D. Fla.):
Here is an excerpt:
1. The MICCOSUKEE TRIBE brings this suit to redress intentional and gross breaches of trust by the United States, by and through the Defendants, with respect to the money and property of the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People.
2. This suit involves willful, purposeful, and malicious actions by the United States, by and through the Defendants, by selectively targeting the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People for federal tax audits.3. The procedures utilized to target the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People were improper, secret, and conflict ridden.4. These procedures were conflict ridden and improper because they involved dealings with persons acting outside the established scope of employment with the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and whose legal interests were clearly and substantially adverse to the legal interests of the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People.5. Although the United States, acting by and through the Defendants, clearly knew that the individuals they were dealing with were acting to the detriment of the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People, it allowed, encouraged, perpetrated, and protected them in order to improperly obtain tax assessments, penalties, and interest against the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People amounting to millions of dollars.6. Although the United States, acting by and through the Defendants, clearly knew that some of the individuals they were dealing with were actively engaged in violation of the criminal laws of the United States while purporting to represent the interests of the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE, the United States allowed, encouraged, perpetrated, and protected these individuals in order to improperly obtain tax assessments, penalties, and interest against the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People amounting to millions of dollars.7. These losses to the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People are permanent and of a continuing nature, as interest continues to accrue on the tax assessments instituted by the United States, acting by and through the Defendants.8. As a direct and proximate cause of the intentional and wrongful actions, as well as the gross breach of trust by the United States, acting by and through the Defendants, the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People have suffered irreparable harm by losing millions of dollars through the Defendants’ arbitrary and indiscriminate imposition of tax liabilities, penalties and interest.
Matheson v. Washington Dept. of Revenue Cert Petition
Here:
Matheson v Washington Cert Petition
Questions presented:
1. Did the state courts below err in entering a state excise tax and penalty judgment against a tribal Indian who is exempt from state taxes and who also had a state tobacco license to transport cigarettes free of state tax stamps?
2. Is a tribal Indian, whose only activity was to transport cargo in round trips to Indian reservations, exempt from state taxes under the Indian and interstate commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution?
For the life of me, I can’t find the Washington Court of Appeals materials in this matter. Weird….
Chehalis Tribe Prevails in Great Wolf Lodge Tax Case
Here is the opinion.
The court’s summary:
Reversing the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that state and local governments lack the power to tax permanent improvements built on non-reservation land owned by the United States and held in trust for an Indian tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465.
The panel held that pursuant to Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973), the exemption of trust lands from state and local taxation under § 465 extends to permanent improvements on such lands. The panel concluded that the fact that the improvements were owned by a limited liability company, rather than by the tribe itself, was irrelevant, as was the question whether the improvements constituted personal property under state law.
Briefs here.
Oral argument audio here.
Judicial notice materials re: new federal leasing regs are here.
Arizona AG Opinion: Tax Statute re Mojave Indian Reservation Land Unconstitutional
Here is the AG opinion.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.