Here is the opinion in Apache Stronghold v. United States.
Briefs here.

Here are the materials in United States v. State of Alaska (D. Alaska):

Here is the complaint in Lac Courte Oreilles Financial Services LLC v. Cane Bay Partners VI LLLP (W.D. Wis.):

Here, starting around 18:15, right after the Leeroy Jenkins discussion.
Leeroy Jenkins starts around 1:23 in this YouTube video.
Here.

Here is today’s order list.
The denied petition is Acres Bonusing Inc. v. Marston — cert stage briefs here:
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in LaRose v. Haaland (D. Minn.):

Seth Davis, Eric Biber & Elena Kempf have published “Persistent Sovereignties” in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Here is the abstract:
From the first days of the United States, the story of sovereignty has not been one of a simple division between the federal government and the states of the Union. Then, as today, American Indian tribes persisted as self-governing peoples with ongoing and important political relationships with the United States. And then, as today, there was debate about the proper legal characterization of those relationships.
The United States Supreme Court confronted that debate in McGirt v. Oklahoma when, in an opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, it held that the reservation of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation “persists today.” The Court’s recognition of the persistence of Tribal sovereignty triggered a flurry of critical commentary, including from federal lawmakers who share Justice Gorsuch’s commitment to originalism. But the early history of federal Indian law supports the persistence of tribal sovereignty.
You must be logged in to post a comment.