Here are the materials in Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States.
Supreme Court Merits Briefs
Cert Stage Briefs
D.C. Circuit Materials
District Court Materials
DCT Order Dismissing Menominee Claims
Menominee Motion for Summary J
Earlier D.C. Circuit Materials
They’re the Flickertails Fighting Hawks.
Here is “After Decades of Hand-Wringing, U. of North Dakota Has a New Nickname.”
Here are the relevant materials in MCI Communications Services Inc. v. Arizona Telephone Co. (N.D. Tex.):
37 Tribal Telecommunications Companies Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
In this action by two interexchange carriers (“IXCs”) seeking relief related to access fees that local exchange carriers (“LECs”) charge the IXCs to provide access services for wireless intraMTA calls, three defendants move to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) based on tribal immunity. For the reasons explained, the court grants the motion and also grants plaintiffs leave to replead.
“Petitioners are the non-Indian operators of a
business on a tribal reservation. Respondent Doe is a
member of the tribe. Doe seeks to hale petitioners
into his tribal court, asking the tribe to award him
millions of dollars in damages (including punitive
damages) for an alleged violation of unwritten tribal
tort law by one of petitioners’ employees.”
Additional Briefs HERE
Here:
Question presented:
In Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 409 (1994), this Court granted certiorari “to resolve the direct conflict between” the Tenth Circuit and the Utah Supreme Court over whether Congress has diminished the lands of the Uintah Valley and Uncompaghre Indian Reservation. This Court adopted the state court’s holding that the lands have been diminished, such that those lands are not Indian Country.
The Tenth Circuit is not giving up, however. It has held that its prior precedent justifies expressly refusing to follow Hagen,except to the limited extent absolutely compelled with respect to the precise facts of this Court’s ruling. In this case, the Tenth Circuit went substantially further still and held that its earlier (admittedly erroneous) holding that the reservation has not been diminished binds even petitioner Wasatch County, which was not a party to any of the prior litigation. Despite this Court’s determination to resolve the conflict between the federal and state courts in Hagen, that conflict continues to persist.The Question Presented is:
Did the court of appeals err in defying this Court’s decision in Hagen v. Utah and enjoining a proper state court prosecution of a tribal member on lands that this Court has held have been diminished by Congress?
Here is the order in FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (D. Idaho):
43 DCT Order Denying Discovery
An excerpt:
To allow a litigant to conduct full-blown discovery here, after he failed to conduct discovery in the tribal court litigation, would ignore National Farmers and Iowa Mutual. Those cases directed that all issues be fully presented to the tribal court so that it might cure any problems and give the federal court the benefit of its expertise. If a due process issue like judicial bias is not fully developed through discovery before being presented to the tribal court – and the litigant simply sits on his discovery rights until he gets into federal court – the tribal court never gets a chance to review the discovery, apply its expertise, and cure any unfair judicial bias revealed by the discovery. That is antithetical to the analysis of National Farmers and Iowa Mutual.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.