Hawkins v. Haaland Cert Petition [tribal management of Klamath River]

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Does the federal government possess final decision-making authority over the management of water rights held in trust for an Indian tribe?

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Miccosukee Member’s Challenge to Federal Income Taxes on Per Capita Payments

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage materials in Clay v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in in Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage materials.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage materials.

Self v. Cher-Ae Heights Indian Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria [immovable property exception]

Here:

Cert Petition

Lower court materials here.

Dakota Access LLC v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Cert Petition

Here:

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

  1. Whether, under NEPA, an agency that carefully considers all criticisms of its environmental analysis must also “resolve” those criticisms to the court’s satisfaction to justify a finding of no significant impact; and
  2. Whether procedural error under NEPA per se warrants remand with vacatur.

Lower court materials here.

Four Cert Petitions Filed in Texas v. Haaland [Brackeen ICWA Case]

Today Texas, the individual plaintiffs, the Solicitor General, and the intervening tribal nations filed petitions for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to review the Fifth Circuit decision regarding the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act. There will be some additional briefing over the next 30 days, and then/eventually the Court will decide whether to hear the case or not.

The Indian Law Clinic at MSU Law represents the intervening tribes in this case.

Grand River Six Nations Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton Cert Petition

Here:

GRE Six Nations Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether Connecticut impermissibly regulates or controls conduct beyond the boundaries of the State in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors doing no business in Connecticut and having no nexus with Connecticut.

2. Whether Connecticut violates Due Process protections when it bans a manufacturer’s products from being sold in the state, if the manufacturer fails to obtain and provide to Connecticut private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors relating to their distribution of products in jurisdictions other than Connecticut.

3. Whether Connecticut violates the Supremacy Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors who conduct no business in Connecticut nor distribute the manufacturer’s products to, or in, Connecticut.

Lower court materials here.