Here:
Town of Aquinnah’s Cert Petition
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Cert Petition
Question presented:
Whether the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a statute of general application, impliedly repealed other federal statutes that specifically subject Indian tribes to state restrictions on gaming, a question that has divided the courts of appeals.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE:
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Acts of Congress, authorizing the President to set apart and reserve any reservoir site or other lands necessary to conserve and protect the water supply for the Indians or for general agricultural development, diminished the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.
2. Whether as used in 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a), the term “Indian Country” includes the National Forest land, and the right of way running through the National Forest lands where the alleged criminal conduct occurred, for purpose of federal criminal jurisdiction.
Lower court materials here.
Say it isn’t so Amy Poehler!
Actually, the petition is captioned Upstate Citizens for Equality v. United States:
Questions presented:
1. Can Congress in the exercise of its Article 1 powers infringe, reduce or diminish the territorial integrity of a State without its prior consent?2. Does Congress possess plenary power over Indian affairs and if so does it expand the Indian Commerce Clause to authorize the displacement of State rights to territorial integrity?3. Does the land acquisition in this case via the mechanism of 25 USC § 465 (now 25 USC § 5108), represent a violation of the limits inherently expressed in the Indian Commerce Clause that limit Congress’ power to ‘regulate’ ‘commerce?’4. Does the 300,000-acre ancient Oneida Indian reservation in New York still exist?
Lower court materials here.
Update (7/7/17)– the adults have entered the room — here is the federal government’s cert opp brief:
Here is the petition in Rothe v. Dept. of Defense:
Questions presented:
1. Whether a statutory program that requires an agency to distribute benefits to “socially disadvantaged individuals,” and defines “socially disadvantaged” in terms of membership in certain racial minority groups, classifies on the basis of race and is thus subject to strict scrutiny.2. Whether a statute that may not classify exclusively on the basis of race, but uses race as a factor in determining eligibility for benefits, is subject to strict scrutiny.
Lower court opinion here.
Here:
Questions presented:
1) Does the Secretary of the Interior have unlimited authority pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465,25 U.S.C. § 9 and 43 U.S.C. § 1457 to promulgate and exercise the 25 CFR Part 151 regulations to acquire any fee land from state jurisdiction and place it into federal trust status?2) Whether the Second Circuit misinterpreted the “fact” discussion in this Court’s majority opinion in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation upholding its prior decision that the Oneida state Indian reservation was federal Indian country affecting the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 14,000 acres of fee land to place into federal trust in the Records of Decision prejudicing these petitioners in applying 5 U.S.C. § 706 in this case.3) What is left of the Equal Footing Doctrine if the Secretary of the Interior can acquire fee land from the original colony of the State of New York and place it into federal trust for an Indian tribe to exercise jurisdiction over it as federal territorial land?
Here:
Meyers v Nicolet Restaurant Cert Petition
This is a companion to a petition involving the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.