cert petition

Dept. of Justice [almost certainly over Interior’s objections] and Arizona File Cert Petitions in Navajo Nation Water Rights Trust Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Dept. of the Interior v. Navajo Nation:

US Cert Petition.pdfDownload

Question presented:

Whether the federal government owes the Navajo Nation an affirmative, judicially enforceable fiduciary duty to assess and address the Navajo Nation’s need for water from particular sources, in the absence of any substantive source of law that expressly establishes such a duty.

Here is the petition and the partial acquiescence by Justice in Arizona v. Navajo Nation:

Arizona v. Navajo Nation Cert Petition.pdfDownload
US Response — Arizona v. Navajo Nation.pdfDownload

Questions presented:

I. Does the Ninth Circuit Opinion, allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation’s water needs and manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to in- terfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court’s re- tained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California?
II. Can the Nation state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with this Court’s holding in Jicarilla based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the Winters Doctrine?

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in 1 Indian Law Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

The denied petition is Acres Bonusing Inc. v. Marston — cert stage briefs here:

Acres Bonusing Cert Petition

Opposition

Reply

Lower court materials here.

States’ Cert Petition in Navajo Nation Water Rights Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Arizona v. Navajo Nation:

arizona-v.-navajo-cert-petitionDownload

Questions presented:

I. Does the Ninth Circuit Opinion, allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation’s water needs and *ii manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to interfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court’s retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California?

II. Can the Nation state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with this Court’s holding in Jicarilla based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the Winters Doctrine?

Lower court materials here.

Adams v. Dodge Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

21- Petition.pdfDownload

Questions presented:

1. Whether federal plaintiffs seeking to challenge their non-federal prosecution on the basis of bad faith face a heightened pleading standard.

2. Whether actions taken by the clerk of a non-federal court to impede review of a habeas petition obviate the petitioner’s need to further exhaust remedies in that court.

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Two Indian Fishing Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

The court denied cert in Scudero v. Alaska (cert stage materials) and Snoqualmie v. Washington (cert stage materials).

Where cert petitions go to die — U.S. Supreme Court interiors. Corridor, U.S. Supreme Court

Snoqualmie v. Washington Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Snoqualmie Cert Petition.pdfDownload

Questions presented:

  1. Whether the federal courts have the constitutional authority to unilaterally abrogate all rights guaranteed to an Indian tribe under a treaty with the United States absent congressional action.
  2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by applying issue preclusion to hold that Snoqualmie was not a party to the Treaty even though the Executive Branch expressly recognizes Snoqualmie as a Treaty party.

Lower court materials here.

Amicus briefs in support of the petition:

Indian Law Scholars Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
Sauk-Suiattle Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
Cougar Den Amicus Brief.pdfDownload

Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Becker Pet. for Cert..pdfDownload

Questions presented:

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.

Circuit split?

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Brief in Opposition.pdfDownload
Becker Reply Brief.pdfDownload