Here:
Question presented:
Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires dismissal of an Administrative Procedure Act action challenging a federal agency’s compliance with statutory requirements governing federal agency decisions, for failure to join a non-federal entity that would benefit from the challenged agency action and cannot be joined without consent.
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly holds that tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers is established whenever a Montana exception is met, or whether, as the Seventh and Eighth Circuits have held, a court must also determine that the exercise of such jurisdiction stems from the tribe’s inherent authority to set conditions on entry, preserve tribal self-government, or control internal relations.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit has construed the Montana exceptions to swallow the general rule that tribes lack jurisdiction over nonmembers.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition in Neff v. United States:
Questions presented:
1. Does a misrepresentation about the true identity of the owner of a business during settlement negotiations to resolve a civil lawsuit constitute a scheme to defraud the litigant of money or property in violation of the mail and wire fraud statutes?
2. Is the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity wholly inapplicable in a circumstance where payday loans are made by a Native American tribe in affiliation with an entity acting as an “arm of the tribe” where such loans are made at interest rates in excess of state regulations, thus rendering the loans ipso facto unlawful debts in violation of the RICO statute?
3. Does the government have to prove willfulness to establish a RICO conspiracy to collect an unlawful debt?Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition in Bales v. United States:
Question presented:
Whether, against the legal backdrop of Congress’s and this Court’s recognition of the primacy of state law to determine, quantify, and administer water rights, a federal court may deem federal agency regulatory action under the Endangered Species Act to constitute the adjudication and administration of water rights for tribal purposes.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition in Noem v. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe:
noem-v-flandreau-cert-petition.pdf
Question presented:
Does the Bracker test currently serve as a consistent and predictable rule of law in light of the exponential expansion of Indian gaming since 1988 and the fiscal demands the industry now places on state budgets?
Lower court materials here.
Merits Briefs:
2020 03 20 McGirt Joint Motion for Divided Argument and Enlargement of Time
Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioner:
2020 02 11 Amicus Brief Brad Henry et al
2020 02 11 Amicus Brief Historians Legal Scholars Cherokee Nation
2020 02 11 Amicus Brief National Ass’n Criminal Defense Lawyers
2020 02 11 Amicus Brief National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center et al
2020 02 11 Amicus Brief of Muscogee Creek Nation
18-9526tsacFormerUnitedStatesAttorneys
Amicus Briefs in Support of Respondent:
2020 03 20 Amicus Brief of United States
2020 03 20 Environmenal Fderation of Oklahoma, et al, Amicus Brief
2020 03 20 Int’l Municipal Lawers and Nat’l Sheriffs’ Assn Amicus Br
2020 03 20 Tulsa Merits Amicus Brief
Oklahoma District Attorneys Amicus Brief
Cert Stage Materials:
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether a contract for the purchase of goods entered into, and fully performed by, an Indian Tribe outside the exterior boundaries of the state in which the Tribe’s reservation is located can constitutionally subject the out of state vendor to the specific personal jurisdiction of the buyer’s state, under state laws purporting to regulate the sale of those goods in the buyer’s state.
2. Whether a state has specific personal jurisdiction to regulate a purchase of goods contract between an Indian on an Indian reservation outside the state and an Indian Tribe located within the state’s boundaries when the contract is performed on the
out of state Indian reservation.
3. Whether there is a constitutional or statutory right afforded to an Indian of one tribe to conduct business free from state regulation with an Indian of a different tribe, both of which are located in Indian country, under the Indian Commerce Clause.
4. Whether a tribally chartered corporation wholly owned by a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe is an Indian for purposes of the protections afforded to Indians under federal law.
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Here:
petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari.pdf
Question presented:
Whether an Indian tribe’s governing body can be stripped of its sovereign immunity from suit for actions taken by its members in their official capacities, as long as a plaintiff merely names the members individually and those officials will be bound by any judgment entered.
Lower court materials here.
