1. The Court denied cert in Acres v. Marston, part of a longstanding — and by now patently ridiculous — effort by a nonmember to punish an Indian tribe’s employees for working at the tribe. The petition is here (the respondent’s waived the right to respond):
2. The Court also denied cert in Mill Bay Members Assn. v. United States, another petition related to a longstanding effort by nonmembers to punish an Indian tribe for existing, this time by suing the federal government. The petition is here (the government waived the right to respond):
3. The Court also denied cert in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe, a case about tribal exhaustion with a plausible, if weak, circuit split — perhaps, again, because this is a longstanding, ridiculous dispute between a nonmember and tribe (both sides ridiculous this time). The cert stage briefs are here.
4. The Court, finally, denied cert in Quaempts v. Lopez, an unremarkable sovereign immunity matter.
Whether a federal court may force a non-consenting, non-Indian plaintiff to exhaust his claims in tribal court when the defendant tribe has expressly consented by contract to federal or state court jurisdiction and waived both sov- ereign immunity and tribal exhaustion.
Whether a state court may adjudicate a contractual dispute between a tribe and a non-Indian where the tribe has provided specific contrac- tual consent to state court jurisdiction; or in- stead, whether the Constitution or laws of the United States prohibit such exercises of state court jurisdiction unless the State has assumed general civil jurisdiction over tribal territory under Sections 1322 and 1326 of Title 25.
Discussion and argument heard on the motions. After taking a recess, and for the reasons stated on the record, the court made the following rulings on the record: The court DENIES 70 Mr. Becker’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction; DENIES 71 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document; DENIES 75 The Tribe’s Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Motion for Permanent Injunction; and GRANTS 93 Tribe’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply.
The court also stays the case and all remaining pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 72, 73 and 74). Should the tribal court decline jurisdiction, the court will then address the remaining motions. The parties are granted leave to file a motion to lift the stay if circumstances should change before resolution of both the tribal court and state court actions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.