Tanner v. Cayuga Nation Cert Petition

Here:

Petition

Questions presented:

1. In view of Sherrill, whether New York tribes exercise “concurrent” jurisdiction over fee lands within the plenary taxing and regulatory authority of the state and local governments, thereby enabling those tribes to engage in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and cause the same or greater disruptions of settled expectations condemned by this Court in Sherrill.

2. Whether fee lands under plenary state and local taxation and regulation (per Sherrill) constitute “Indian lands” under IGRA because those lands are located within the Cayugas’ historic reservation.

3. Whether the Cayuga Nation’s ancient reservation was disestablished. 

Lower court materials here.

Oklahoma Federal Court Dismisses Nonmember Company’s Objection to Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Here are the materials in Monster Tech. Group v. Eller (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Agreement

1-2 AAA Petition

1-3 Iowa Tribal Court Injunction

4-1 Monster Group Motion

5 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint without Prejudice

7-1 Motion for Reconsideration

8 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Land Claim

Here are the materials in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. City of El Paso:

CA5 Unpublished Opinion

Opening Brief

Professor Amicus Brief

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Amicus Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Seminole Gaming Compact Set Aside

Here are the orders (they are the same) in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

43 DCT Order

And in Monterra MF v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

55 DCT Order

Briefs in both cases here.

American Indian Law Review 2021-2022 Writing Competition

Writing Competition Rules

TOPICS: Papers will be accepted on any legal issue specifically concerning American Indians or other Indigenous peoples.

ELIGIBILITY: The competition is open to students enrolled in J.D. or graduate law programs at accredited law schools in the United States and Canada as of the competition deadline of Monday, February 28th, 2022. Editors of the American Indian Law Review are not eligible to compete.

AWARDS: The first place winner receives $1,500 and publication by the American Indian Law Review, an official periodical of the University of Oklahoma College of Law with international readership. The second place winner receives $750, and third place receives $400. Each of the three winning authors will also be awarded an eBook copy of Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, provided by LexisNexis.

DEADLINE: All emailed entries must be received no later than 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Monday, February 28th, 2022 (5 p.m. Central Standard Time). Entries will be acknowledged upon receipt. Submissions may be emailed to the American Indian Law Review at mwaters@ou.edu

JUDGES: Papers will be judged by members of the legal profession with an interest in American Indian law and by the editors of the American Indian Law Review.

STANDARDS: Papers will be judged on the basis of originality and timeliness of topic, knowledge and use of applicable legal principles, proper and articulate analysis of the issues, use of authorities and extent of research, logic and reasoning in analysis, ingenuity and ability to argue by analogy, clarity and organization, correctness of format and citations, grammar and writing style, and strength and logic of conclusions. All entries will be checked for plagiarism via an online service.

FORM: Entries must be a minimum of 20 double-spaced pages in length and a maximum of 50 double-spaced pages in length excluding footnotes or endnotes. All citations should conform to The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (21st ed.). The body of the email must contain the author’s name, school, expected year of graduation, current address, permanent address, and email address. No identifying marks (name, school, etc.) should appear on the paper itself. All entries must have only one author. Entries must be unpublished, not currently submitted for publication elsewhere, and not currently entered in other writing competitions. Papers entered in the American Indian Law Review writing competition may not be submitted for consideration to any other publication until such time as winning entrants are announced, unless the entrant has withdrawn the entry or received a notification of release prior to that time. Any entries not fully in accord with required form will be ineligible for consideration.

SUBMISSION: Submissions may be emailed to the American Indian Law Review at mwaters@ou.edu by the competition deadline. Entries may be sent as Microsoft Word, PDF, or WordPerfect documents.

CONTACT: E-mail — Michael Waters, mwaters@ou.edu
Phone Numbers — (405) 325-2840 and (405) 325-5191
This rules sheet is also available on the AILR website, at http://www.ailr.net/writecomp.

OCCA Materials in McClain v. Oklahoma

Here:

OCCA Opinion

Appellant’s Motion for Remand

State Brief

State’s Motion to Stay

 

California COA Decides Acres v. Marston

Here is the opinion:

Briefs:

Keep in mind as to this case and the related Ninth Circuit case we posted a while ago here, this is about a nonmember sued by a tribe in tribal court for breach of contract, a nonmember who won before the tribal court, and now is suing the tribal judges, tribal employees, and the lawyers for the tribe for racketeering because the nonmember believes there was a conspiracy against him. The only reason this case exists is because of the Lewis v. Clarke decision (preceded by Ninth Circuit cases) that holds individuals who work for tribes sued in their individual capacities are not immune. Even if the nonmember’s claim here has validity (seems very unlikely but who knows?), this case is definitive proof that the Lewis v. Clarke precedent will allow absolutely frivolous contract and other claims to proceed against tribes on the Lewis v. Clarke fiction that tribal employees sued in their individual capacity are somehow not engaged in tribal governmental activity and that the tribes that indemnify their employees are doing so for reasons unrelated to tribal governmental prerogatives. Here, we’re talking tribal judges (including an associate judge who was not assigned the case), a court clerk, and lawyers retained by the tribe to merely serve as counsel for the tribe, among others. They might all win below, as the court here suggests, but they have to make the correct arguments in what appears to be a game of whack-a-mole.

Virginia Executive Order on Tribal Consultation

Va. Order Gives Tribes More Power Over State Permits

By Clark Mindock, Law 360

Read the article here!

Further Reading:

Gov. Northam’s Press Release: https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2021/november/headline-911335-en.html

Washington Post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/11/18/virginia-indian-tribes-northam-consultation/

Law360 (attached; it’s behind a paywall): https://www.law360.com/projectfinance/articles/1441920/va-order-gives-tribes-more-power-over-state-permits

Indianz.comhttps://www.indianz.com/News/2021/11/18/virginia-governor-adopts-formal-tribal-consultation-policy/

WRIC: https://www.wric.com/news/politics/northam-executive-order-requires-consultation-with-tribal-nations-on-permits-for-environmental-cultural-and-historic-resources/

WHSV: https://www.whsv.com/2021/11/19/executive-order-state-permitting-agencies-must-consult-tribal-nations/

Virginia Mercury: https://www.virginiamercury.com/blog-va/northam-orders-state-to-consult-with-tribal-nations-when-considering-permits/

First Native American Appointed to MN Court of Appeals

Gov. Walz appoints Sarah Wheelock to fill vacancy on the Minnesota Court of Appeals

Bench & Bar of Minnesota | Minnesota State Bar Association
By Claire Lancaster

Read the article here!

___________________________________

Minnesota Governor Appoints Meskwaki Tribal Citizen Sarah Wheelock to Serve on State’s Court of Appeals

Native News Online
By Native News Online Staff

Read the article here!