Federal Govt. Brings Cert Petition on CARES Act Funding Eligibility

Here is the petition in Mnuchin v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation:

Mnuchin v Chehalis Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act are “Indian Tribe[s]” for purposes of the CARES Act, 42 U.S.C. 801(g)(1).

The Alaska Native Corps petition is here.

Lower court materials here.

Alaska Native Corps Cert Petition on CARES Act

Here is the petition in Alaska Native Village Corporations Assn. v. Mnuchin:

Alaska Native Corps Cert Petition

Questions presented:

Whether ANCs are “Indian tribes” under ISDEAA and therefore are eligible for emergency-relief funds under Title V of the CARES Act.

Lower court materials here.

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas Cert Petition

Here:

Ysleta Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether the Restoration Act provides the Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities on its lands (including bingo), as set forth in the plain language of Section 107(b), the Act’s legislative history, and this Court’s holding in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), or whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision affirming Ysleta I correctly subjects the Pueblo to all Texas gaming regulations.

Lower court materials here.

Muckleshoot v. Tulalip U&A Cert Petition

Here is the cert petition in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with precedent of this Court and the D.C. Circuit, impermissibly narrowed a decades-old judicial decree so as to deprive Indian tribes of their ability to exercise treaty fishing rights.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Brief in Opposition

United Parcel Service Inc. v. New York Cert Petition

Here:

UPS Cert Petition

Appendix

New York Brief in Opposition

Questions presented:

1. The Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act prohibits the knowing transportation of “a quantity” of more than 10,000 untaxed cigarettes in the “possession” of unauthorized persons. 18 U.S.C. § 2341(2). The first question presented is whether multiple shipments from different shippers may be aggregated to satisfy the 10,000-cigarette threshold.
2. The Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 exempts UPS by name if its tobacco-delivery agreement with New York is “honored” nationwide. 15 U.S.C. § 376a(e)(3)(B)(ii)(I). The second question presented is whether substantial compliance is a prerequisite to this statutory exemption.

Second Circuit materials here:

CA2 Opinion

UPS Brief

New York Opening Brief

UPS Reply

New York Reply

DCT materials here.

SCOTUS Holds Creek Reservation is Indian Country

Here is the opinion:

McGirt Opinion

Briefs here.

In a separate order, the Court affirmed Sharp v. Murphy:

Murphy Order