Discussions from the Borderlands

This week the Michigan State University Department of Philosophy conference Discussions From the Borderlands will host two ILPC alumni as keynote speakers! PDF flyer here.

Sarah Yore-Van Oosterhout, ‘12 “The Invisible Wall”

March 13 5-6pm Wells Hall B310

Nellie Jo David, ‘14  “When Borders Cross O’odham: Maintaining Connections During Active Conquests to Divide Our People”

March 14 3-4pm MSU Library Digital Scholarship Lab, 2nd Floor West Wing

 

program draft

“Michigan school district votes to drop mascot name”

Detroit Free Press article here.

WWMT West Michigan article here.

Ak-Chin Indian Community Sues Water Districts over Interference with Its Water Rights

Here is the complaint in Ak-Chin Indian Community v. Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District (D. Ariz.):

Fourth Case (at least?) Filed Involving Human Remains at Jamul

Here is the complaint in Rosales v. United States (E.D. Cal.):

Chemehuevi Brings Trespass Action

Here is the complaint in Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Havasu Water Co. (C.D. Cal.):

State of Washington House Proposes to Restart Studies of State Trooper Bias against Indian People

Here, from InvestigateWest.

UNM NALSA: Crime In Indian Country

NALSAFlyer

 

March 26, 2020

5:30-8:30pm

PDF flyer here.

Register here.

 

 

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Cases Involving Pinoleville Pomo Nation & Chemehuevi Indian Tribe

Here is today’s order list.

The Court denied cert in James v. JW Gaming Development LLC (materials) and McMahon v. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe (materials).

Prosecutor/Attorney Position Open at LCO, Closing date 3/20/20

Tribal Attorney Job PostingKGRevised20200228

New Scholarship: “The Loudest Voice at the Supreme Court”

Darcy Covert & A.J. Wang have posted “The Loudest Voice at the Supreme Court: The Solicitor General’s Dominance of Amicus Oral Argument” on SSRN. The NYTs profiled the article here.

Here is the abstract:

Over the last century, amicus participation in oral argument at the Supreme Court has become common, but only for one litigant: the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States (“OSG”). Between the 2010 and 2017 Terms, the Court granted only 8 of 26 motions for amicus oral argument by litigants other than OSG. During that time, it granted 252—all but 1—of such motions by OSG. Since the early 2000s, OSG has often argued more frequently in a Term as an amicus than as a party.

This Article presents the first history of amicus oral argument and how OSG came to dominate this practice. Drawing on an original database of every motion for amicus oral argument filed from 1889 through 2017, we offer the first quantitative history of the practice of amicus oral argument before the Court. We supplement this with a qualitative account of the historical and modern use of amicus oral argument based on archival research and interviews with frequent Supreme Court litigators, including current and former members of OSG. We find that the Court grants OSG virtually unlimited access to amicus oral argument without regard to the strength of the federal interest or the political nature of a given case.

The Court’s special solicitude towards OSG has profound consequences. The Solicitor General already occupies a special role at the Court as the “Tenth Justice.” We argue that OSG’s seemingly unlimited ability to appear before the Court systematically biases the perspectives heard at the Court and therefore undermines due process principles and the adversarial process. We conclude with a proposal for reform.