Here:
Question presented:
Whether a tribal court has jurisdiction to adjudicate employment claims by Arizona school district employees against their Arizona school district employer that operates on the Navajo reservation pursuant to a state constitutional mandate to provide a general and uniform public education to all Arizona children.
Lower court materials here.
Update: Arizona Amicus Brief [notably, no other state signed on with Arizona]
Here:
Question presented:
This case presents a question that divides the circuits: Should the “detention” requirement for habeas review under the ICRA be construed “more narrowly than” the “custody” showing required under other federal habeas statutes?
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE (10/27/17): Amicus Brief
Here is the petition in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren:
Question presented:
Does a court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction overcome the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity when the tribe has not waived immunity and Congress has not unequivocally abrogated it?
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE:
Here:
Seattle Human Rights Commission Culvert_OpEd
An excerpt:
The Seattle Human Rights Commission writes in response to the Seattle Times recent editorial “The Supreme Court must clarify culvert ruling,” and seeks to correct inaccuracies regarding tribal treaty rights and the State’s obligation to not impair them. Washington’s tribal nations have lived and fished throughout our State since time immemorial, and their right to do so is protected by treaty. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an exhaustive and well researched opinion, recognized that this right requires the removal of culverts that block fish passage. The State’s decision to seek Supreme Court review of that decision reflects revisionist and troubling effort to weaken treaty rights.
Here are the materials in Public Service Company of New Mexico v. Approximately 15.49 Acres of Land in McKinley County (D.N.M.):
142 Motion to Confirm Stay Order
Prior posts here.
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether a tribe that opted out of the Indian Reorganization Act can have its status under the Act revived under the Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2202, even though the United States did not hold land in trust for that tribe at the time the tribe sought a land-in-trust acquisition.
2. Whether the land-in-trust provision of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5108, exceeds Congress’ authority under the Indian Commerce Clause, Art. I, § S, cl. 3.
3. Whether § 5108’s standardless delegation of authority to acquire land “for Indians” is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
4. Whether the federal government’s control over state land must be categorically exclusive for the Enclave Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, to prohibit the removal of that land from state jurisdiction.
The State of Washington has petitioned for cert. in the Culverts case. The cert. petition is available here.
Here:
Question presented:
Whether a generally applicable federal statute, which is silent as to its applicability to Indian Tribes, should nevertheless be presumed to apply to Tribes.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.