Here:
12-399 bsacSeminoleTribeofFloridaetal
Here.
Here: Northern Cheyenne Amicus Brief.
The other materials are here.
Here — CPN Amicus Brief
Other materials are here. And here is the Supreme Court docket.
Here is the brief, submitted at the invitation of the Michigan Supreme Court, and co-authored by the MSU Indigenous Law and Policy Center and Michigan Indian Legal Services.
Here — law-prof-amicus-brief-navajo-nation
And several former Interior Secretaries filed a brief supporting the Navajo Nation — former-interior-secretaries-brief-navajo-nation
Other briefs are here.
From Slate:
In its last term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard fewer cases than it has in any single term in more than 50 years. This means that getting your case heard at the high court is about 10 times harder than getting into Harvard. How do you up your odds? Just as a recommendation letter from a well-placed alum gets attention from an admissions office, a supportive brief from an advocacy group, sent to the court at the stage when it’s deciding whether to take a case, flags a case for the justices.
Each year, parties that have lost in the lower courts file about 9,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari (cert for short) in which they beg the court to hear them. The Supreme Court has nearly complete discretion over which cases it will take. Last term, only 69 cert petitions resulted in arguments before the justices. The lucky few were more likely to have gotten a helping hand from a friend-of-the-court brief, filed by an outside group with an interest in the case’s outcome. Influence, in this sense, is all about timing. Amicus briefs, as they’re known, tend to pile up on both sides of a case once the court takes it, all competing for the justices’ attention. But the amicus briefs filed before the court grants cert are much rarer, and, accordingly, more influential. Yet this is a tool that liberal groups often fail to use.
Here is the Narragansett brief in Carcieri. As we get them, we’ll post them.
SCOTUSBlog lists Carcieri v. Kempthorne as a petition to watch for the Feb. 22 conference.
There are some warning signs, notably the amicus brief filed by numerous states in support of Rhode Island’s petition. See Gregory A. Caldiera & John R. Wright, Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court, 82 American Political Science Review 1109, 1122 (1988 ) (“[A]micus curiae briefs filed in support of the petition for certiorari increase the estimated probability that the Supreme Court will grant by a magnitude of .5 or .6, depending upon the characteristics of a particular case.”).
As I argued earlier, however, (1) there is no circuit split; and (2) the issue may turn on the particular import of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act, meaning that the outcome could have little or no import nationally. Moreover, the United States is in opposition, so these factors may be sufficient to persuade the Court to let this one percolate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.