Five Tribes Will Not Join Stitt Task Force

Montana Federal Court Orders Stay in Blackfeet Trespass Case, Orders Eagle Bear to Put Up $1M Bond

Here are the new materials in Eagle Bear Inc. v. Blackfeet Indian Nation (D. Mont.):

Prior post here.

Update on Creek Nation v. Tulsa Briefing

Here are the briefs in Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. City of Tulsa (N.D. Okla,):

Prior materials here.

Hawai’i Intermediate COA Briefs in Pascua Yaqui Tribe’s Extradition Request (interesting!)

Here are the available materials in In re the Extradition of Moreno (Haw. Ct. App.):

Who wouldn’t want to be extradited from Hawai’i to Tucson?

SCOTUS Denies Cert in McCarren Act Issue re: Klamath River

Here is today’s order list.

The petition in Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation is here.

The BOR is here.

Reply is here:

Minnesota Municipalities Challenge Interior Trust Land Acquisition for Mille Lacs Band Ojibwe

Here is the complaint in Morrison County v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Minn.):

Defense Contractor Sues US over Alleged “Race or Tribal Status” Discrimination

Here is the complaint in Advanced Simulation Technology LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe Bay Sues Exxon Over Climate Change Lies and Deceit

Here is the complaint in Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Corp. (Wash. Super. Ct.):

Michael Doran on Tribal Sovereignty and Preemption

Michael Dolan has published “Tribal Sovereignty and Preemption” in the Brooklyn Law Review. PDF

Here is the abstract:

In June of 2022, the US Supreme Court held in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta that a state may prosecute a non-Indian for a crime committed against an Indian within Indian country. That decision effectively overruled Worcester v. Georgia, an 1832 landmark case in which Chief Justice Marshall said that state law “can have no force” in Indian country. Although the conventional wisdom about Castro-Huerta sees the case as a radical departure from first principles of federal Indian law, this article argues that Castro-Huerta is the natural—although deeply deplorable—next step in a long line of Supreme Court cases expanding state governmental authority within Indian country. Additionally, this line of cases mirrors a separate line restricting tribal governmental authority within Indian country. Through a critical examination and reinterpretation of these two decisional lines, this article demonstrates how the Supreme Court over the last half century has systematically privileged state interests and the interests of non-Indian individuals over tribal interests. In so doing, the Court has arrogated to itself the political function, formerly exercised only by Congress, of defining tribal sovereignty. This article concludes with a call for Congress to reject the Court’s relentless subordination of Indian interests to non-Indian interests and to reassert its role in defining and defending a robust conception of tribal sovereignty.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!