cert petition – Page 39

Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Cert Petition in Challenge to Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement

September 3, 2013November 15, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Pruitt:

And the questions presented:

1. Whether this Court’s precedents establish that the State of Oklahoma (along with 45 other States and various U.S. territories with similar statutes) can impose escrow obligations on certain cigarette manufacturers based partly on sales by Indian tribes to tribal members in Indian country.

2. Whether the Oklahoma Escrow Statute, as interpreted by the state courts in this case, violates federal law by imposing escrow obligations on certain cigarette manufacturers — including Indian-owned businesses operating on reservation lands mbased partly on sales by Indian tribes to tribal members in Indian country.

Update:

GRE v Oklahoma Cert Opp

GRE Six Nations Cert Reply

Matheson v. Washington Dept. of Revenue Cert Petition

August 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

Here:

Matheson v Washington Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Did the state courts below err in entering a state excise tax and penalty judgment against a tribal Indian who is exempt from state taxes and who also had a state tobacco license to transport cigarettes free of state tax stamps?

2. Is a tribal Indian, whose only activity was to transport cargo in round trips to Indian reservations, exempt from state taxes under the Indian and interstate commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution?

For the life of me, I can’t find the Washington Court of Appeals materials in this matter. Weird….

Briefs in Opposition to Nebraska v. Elise M. Cert Petition

July 30, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Elisa M. Cert Opp

Omaha Tribe Cert Opp

The cert petition is here.

Tonasket v. Sargent Cert Stage Reply Brief

July 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Tonasket v Sargent Cert Stage Reply

Pro Se ICWA Cert Petition Filed with Supreme Court

July 12, 2013August 1, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

The case is captioned James L. v. Devin H.

Petition here.

Docket here.

~~We will post the entire petition once we get it.~~

Questions presented:

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63 applies, with two express exceptions, “In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved”. Despite that fact, many state courts of last resort, and countless state appellate courts in this country have been called upon, year after year, throughout the 35 year history of the Act, to decide a single question of Federal law. That question has involved hundreds of custody disputes to date and a significant number of Indian children each and every year. It is one of the most important questions which this Honorable Court will ever decide regarding the ICWA, and one which all Indian children, families, and tribes have needed a conclusive answer from this Court on for the past 35 years:

(1) Does the Indian Child Welfare Act apply to an involuntary child custody proceeding involving an Indian child, between biological parents and a third party non-parent?

As a separate issue, Petitioner also presents the following question:

(2) Does awarding conservatorship of a child to a third-party non-parent, over the objections of a biological parent and without a finding of parental unfitness, unconstitutionally infringe upon “the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children”?

Federal Cert Opposition Brief in Native Village of Eyak Aboriginal Rights Case

July 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

USA Cert Opp

The petition and links to other materials is here.

Tonasket v. Sargent Cert Opposition Brief:

July 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Tonasket v Sargent Cert Opp

The petition is here.

SCT Denied Cert in Miller v. Wright — Challenge to Puyallup Tax Agreement

June 20, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied Miller v. Wright, a challenge to the Puyallup-Washington tax agreement. Order list here.

Lower court materials here.

No News from SCT on Michigan v. Bay Mills Cert Petition

June 17, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Today’s order list.

Curious. It could mean several things. Most likely is that one of the Justices is thinking about drafting a dissent from the denial of certiorari. We’re not aware of any similar cases in the pipeline that would compel a hold, which is another possibility.