Here are the materials in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Azar (D.D.C.):
Complaint here.
trust relationship
SCOTUS Decides Sturgeon v. Frost II
Materials here.
Update — footnote 2 of the majority:
As noted earlier, the Ninth Circuit has held in three cases—the so called Katie John trilogy—that the term “public lands,” when used in ANILCA’s subsistence-fishing provisions, encompasses navigable waters like the Nation River. See Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F. 3d 698 (1995); John v. United States, 247 F. 3d 1032 (2001) (en banc); John v. United States, 720 F. 3d 1214 (2013); supra, at 12. Those provisions are not at issue in this case, and we therefore do not disturb the Ninth Circuit’s holdings that the Park Service may regulate subsistence fishing on navigable waters. See generally Brief for State of Alaska as Amicus Curiae 29–35 (arguing that this case does not implicate those decisions); Brief for Ahtna, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 30–36 (same).
Fletcher: “Law, Politics, and the Constitution”
Here, on SSRN.
The abstract:
The question whether Congress may create legal classifications based on Indian status under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is now reaching a critical point. Critics claim the Constitution allows no room to create race or ancestry based legal classifications. The critics are wrong.
When it comes to Indian affairs, the Constitution is not colorblind. Textually, I argue, the Indian Commerce Clause and Indians Not Taxed Clause serve as express authorization for Congress to create legal classifications based on Indian race and ancestry, so long as those classifications are not arbitrary, as the Supreme Court stated a century ago in United States v. Sandoval and more recently in Morton v. Mancari.
Should the Supreme Court reconsider those holdings, I suggest there are significant structural reasons why the judiciary should refrain from applying strict scrutiny review of Congressional legal classifications. The reasons are rooted in the political question doctrine and the institutional incapacity of the judiciary. Who is an Indian is a deeply fraught question to which judges have no special institutional capacity to assess.
D.C. District Court Transfers MHA Nation Suit against BLM Drilling Permit Approvals to North Dakota
Here are the materials in Mandan Hidatsa and Arikara Nation v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):
10 Slawson Motion to Intervene
18 Slawson Motion to Transfer Case to DND
GAO Report: “Interior Should Address Factors Hindering Tribal Administration of Federal Programs”
Here.
Steven Pevar: “The Shutdown Is Disproportionally Hurting Native Americans”
Here.
NYTs: “Shutdown Leaves Food, Medicine and Pay in Doubt in Indian Country”
Here, featuring the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
New Paper on Defending Morton v. Mancari
Andrew Huff and Tim Coulter have released “Defending Morton v. Mancari and the Constitutionality of Legislation Supporting Indians and Tribes”.
Quote from the article
Supporting and defending the Mancari decision and the rule that it stands for – that laws benefiting tribes are not unconstitutional racial classifications – is a very high priority, perhaps the most urgent and important Indian law issue of our time. This paper reviews the decision in Mancari and the law leading up to and following it. We then turn to a discussion of the present challenges to the Mancari rule. In Part V, we suggest possible ways to support the decision and its rationale, and we discuss some additional legal arguments and approaches for defending the constitutionality of legislation benefiting tribes.
PDF of paper below and paper is available for download here
2017 DOJ Report on Indian Country Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions
Here.
Federal Court Dismisses Trust Breach Action over Phoenix Indian School Land Exchange
Here are the materials in Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.