cert petition

Siletz Takes Unusual Step of Filing an Amicus Brief in Opposition to Chinook’s Federal Recognition Cert Petition Where Feds Had Already Declined to Respond

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the brief in Chinook Indian Nation v. Burgum:

Siletz Amicus BIO

Petition here.

SCOTUS Denies Unkechauge and Stitt Petitions [Update: And Maverick, too]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order list.

The Unkechauge petition is here.

The Stitt petition is here.

The Maverick petition is here. [Apparently, they changed their name to RunItOneTime, LLC, which alone is reason enough to deny their petition.]

These guys had nothing to do with it, but they’re cool.

Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Stroble-v-OTC-PetitionForAWritOfCertiorariDownload

Question presented:

Whether Oklahoma may tax the income of a Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizen who lives and works within the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation that McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020), held remains Indian country.

Lower court materials here.

Chinook Indian Nation v. Burgum Cert Petition [federal recognition]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Chinook v Burgum Cert PetitionDownload

Question presented:

Does a federal court have jurisdiction to recognize the existence of an Indian tribe where the findings in the Indian Tribe List Act, Public Law 103-454, sec. 103(3), provide that “Indian Tribes presently may be recognized by . . . a decision of a United States court,” and no other federal statute addresses the question of tribal recognition?

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Federal BIO.pdfDownload
Chinook Reply.pdfDownload

Alaska v. United States Cert Petition [Alaska Native fishing subsistence rights]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Alaska v US Cert PetitionDownload

Question presented:

Whether the United States can regulate fishing on Alaska’s navigable waters under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, when its statutory authority is limited to “public lands” and that term is defined as “lands, waters, and interests therein … the title to which is in the United States.”

Lower court materials here.

Briefs in Opposition to Maverick Gaming Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Federal BIO

State of Washington BIO

Tribal BIO

Cert petition here.

Sault Tribe Seeks Supreme Court Review of Federal Court Approval of Treaty Rights Consent Decree

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Michigan:

Cert PetitionDownload

Question presented:

Whether a district court has “inherent equitable power” to enter a coercive “decree” restricting an Indian tribe’s treaty rights without its consent and without satisfying this Court’s well-established standards for injunctive relief.

Lower court materials here.

Stitt v. City of Tulsa Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Cert Petition.pdfDownload

Question presented:

Whether a state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over an Indian for conduct in Indian country absent a valid congressional grant of authority.

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in South Point Energy v. Arizona

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is yesterday’s order list.

Cert stage materials here.

Unkechauge Indian Nation v. Seggos Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Cert PetitionDownload

Questions presented:

Whether the District Court violated Petitioners’ due process rights by granting summary judgment without first fulfilling its gatekeeping obligation under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to rule on the parties’ pending motions to exclude or limit expert testimony?

Whether the District Court erred by relying on the Respondents’ expert witness in its summary judgment decision without first addressing the Petitioners’ motion to exclude or limit Respondents’ expert’s testimony under Daubert?

Whether the District Court violated Petitioners’ due process rights by failing to conduct an in camera review of 4,780 documents withheld by Respondents under claims of privilege, despite having ordered such a review and having possession of the documents since May 2019?

Whether the Court improperly analyzed the Andros Treaty by not finding the Treaty ambiguous and conducting the Indian Canons analysis?

Whether the Court misapprehended the law in finding the Andros Treaty not valid under Federal law?

Lower court materials here.