Turtle Talk

In 2017, the National Indian Gaming Commission determined that a parcel of land in Iowa that is held in trust by the United States for the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska is eligible for gaming. The Commission reasoned that the land is eligible as part of “the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition.” 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii). The appellants here, the States of Iowa and Nebraska and the City of Council Bluffs, challenged that decision in the district court. The district court agreed with the Commission that the Ponca Restoration Act, Pub. L. No. 101-484, 104 Stat. 1167 (1990), does not preclude gaming on the parcel. But because the Commission failed to consider a relevant factor in evaluating whether the parcel is restored land for the Tribe, the court remanded the matter for further consideration. The appellants noticed an appeal, arguing that the court erred in its interpretation of the Ponca Restoration Act. We affirm the district court’s order.

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

News Coverage of Indian Law Matters (8/30/21)

August 30, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

NYTs: “After Video of Abusive Nurse, Canada’s Indigenous Seek Health Overhaul“

WSJ: “Scarce Credit Hinders Homeownership on Tribal Land”

Nevada Current: “Tribes seek pause on development of lithium mine“

Crosscut: “Inside the latest Indigenous push to stop a massive copper mine”

CNN: “Why the jump in the Native American population may be one of the hardest to explain”

NPR: “Indian Boarding Schools’ Traumatic Legacy, And The Fight To Get Native Ancestors Back“

NBS: “Covid spike reignites sovereignty debate among Native Hawaiians”

This Land, season 2, episode 3: “Grandma Versus the Foster Parents“

Grand River Six Nations Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton Cert Petition

August 30, 2021January 7, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

GRE Six Nations Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether Connecticut impermissibly regulates or controls conduct beyond the boundaries of the State in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors doing no business in Connecticut and having no nexus with Connecticut.

2. Whether Connecticut violates Due Process protections when it bans a manufacturer’s products from being sold in the state, if the manufacturer fails to obtain and provide to Connecticut private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors relating to their distribution of products in jurisdictions other than Connecticut.

3. Whether Connecticut violates the Supremacy Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors who conduct no business in Connecticut nor distribute the manufacturer’s products to, or in, Connecticut.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Boughton BIO