Here:
Federal Cert Opposition Brief in Craven v. Cobell
Here:
cert petition
SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Here. And the materials:
Docket: 12-71
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in creating a new, heightened preemption test under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (“the Elections Clause”) that is contrary to the Supreme Court’s authority and conflicts with other circuit court decisions; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that under that test the National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that requests persons who are registering to vote to show evidence that they are eligible to vote.
Certiorari stage documents:
- Opinion below (9th Cir.)
- Petition for certiorari
- Amicus brief of American Unity Legal Defense Fund
- Amicus brief of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
- Amicus brief of Alabama, et al.
- Motion for leave to file amicus brief and amicus brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation
- Brief of respondents The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. et al.
- Brief of respondents Jesus M. Gonzales et al.
- Reply of petitioners to the response of Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona et al.
- Reply of petitioners to the response of Jesus Gonzalez et al.
Cert Petition in Klamath National Forest Endangered Species Act Case
Here is the petition in New 49’ers Inc. v. Karuk Tribe of Indians:
Questions presented:
- Whether a federal official’s receipt and review of notice of private action, his exercise of discretion as to whether to invoke agency regulatory powers over such private action, and his decision not to invoke such powers, constitute “agency action” for purposes of § 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act.
- Whether the federal courts lack jurisdiction over the action in light of changed circumstances.
Lower court materials here (case formerly captioned as Karuk Tribe of California v. USFS).
I don’t know the merits of this petition, but it probably should be denied because of the cheese ball (if not downright tacky) caption here.
Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
1) Whether the Ninth Circuit misconstrued and misunderstood requirements for finding a Federal Trust Responsibility to Indians. Is the pervasive role of the federal government based on the administration of the law as well as the letter of the law?2) Is there a conflict in the Circuits on this issue? Compare Brown v. United States, 86 F.3d 1554, 1560-61 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and other cases in the Federal Circuit with the decision of the Ninth Circuit in this case below (Marceau III, 540 F.3d 916, 928 (9th Cir. 2008).3) Is there a special burden on the federal government as it relates to Indian Housing in view of the Congressional Acts on Housing, the disadvantage to Indians caused by the Indian Allotment Act which prohibits Indians from holding title to their land, and the Indian Trust Responsibility of the federal government?4) Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in summarily dismissing Plaintiffs’ APA claim as time barred when the true state of affairs was not discovered until well within the statute of limitations? Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in not considering the federal Indian Trust Responsibility in connection with this decision?5) Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in holding that HUD had no duty to act on a specific request of the Housing Authority and the Blackfeet Tribe to “fix it?” Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in not considering the federal Indian Trust Responsibility in connection with this decision.
Samish Indian Nation Cert Opposition Brief in Trust Breach Case
Materials in Tribal Challenges to HUD Funding Reductions and Grant Money Recapture Actions
Here are the materials in Fort Peck Housing Authority v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Colo.):
And the materials in Nambé Pueblo Housing Authority v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Colo.):
DCT Order in Nambe Pueblo Case
Earlier materials in Fort Peck Housing Authority v. HUD are here.
BIA Agent Subject to Bivens Action Files Cert Petition
Here is the petition in Oravec v. Cole:
The question presented:
Whether a motion to dismiss brought by a federal law enforcement officer asserting qualified immunity should be granted under Aschroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), where the complaint alleges a Bivens claim through nothing more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of the cause of action, general and unsupported statistics and musings, and alleged policy problems having nothing to do with the particular officer.
Lower court materials here.
On Using Indians and Tribes as Shills in the Supreme Court
I’ve defended the Office of Solicitor General in the past, lamented that despite their best efforts, they keep losing Indian cases as the tribal trustee. But lately, it seems like the SG is using Indian tribes as shills to clean up some other messes. They used the Tohono O’odham Section 1500 CFC suit to clean up that mess — they waited for years for the right case, and when the Indian cases came, that was the right time. The OSG may have thought that the tribal contract support costs cases were the right cases to clean up the mess with the Congressional Judgment Fund (they were wrong).
Now another tribe has given the government a chance to clean up another mess — attorney fees under the Equal Justice Act. The case is Pecore v. United States (Pecore Cert Petition, lower court materials here). I know next to nothing about the EJA, but if the petition is right, and there is a serious circuit split, then the government might jump right in. We’ll know at the end of next month when the response to the cert petition is due. If the government acquiesces, we must all realize they’re doing it because the petitioner is tribal. Tribal interests are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to favored, repeat parties at the Supreme Court.
A footnote — recall the Arizona cert petition on the next major immigration case filed earlier this summer. In the lower court, when Arizona had no say in the caption, the case was called Gonzales v. Arizona. Gonzales was the lead plaintiff, and a lot of people and groups signed on. Now that Arizona has lost below, they rewrote the caption. The case is now captioned Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. All the rest of the respondents are listed in alphabetical order, including Gonzales, except the tribal respondents, who are listed first. If the Court hears this case, it’ll be an Indian-related case first and foremost. Arizona knows what it’s doing.
Craven v. Cobell Cert Petition
Here:
The questions presented:
In a decision that conflicts with many decisions of both this Court and other appellate circuits, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the final approval of a contested settlement of a long-standing class action involving mismanagement of land trusts for American Indians. Without allowing them to opt out, the settlement extinguishes the rights of the class members to any accounting of the moneys they are owed, in exchange for a one-time $1,000 payment. Then, despite the class members’ ignorance of the amount to which they would be entitled, the settlement offers an additional baseline sum of at least $800 in exchange for which they relinquish any rights to sue on dozens of related claims.
This settlement was approved over the objections of a number of class members. In addition to the bargain described above, it afforded a $99 million fee to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, and incentive payments ranging between $150,000 and $2 million for each of the named plaintiffs.The questions presented are:1. Whether a court may impose on an objector the burden to provide evidence of a structural conflict where it concedes that the defendant’s conduct has destroyed any such evidence.
2. Whether the payment of incentives to named plaintiffs of an amount more than eighty times the award due each class member compromises their ability to adequately represent the class at settlement.
Madison and Oneida Counties to Seek Supreme Court Review of Oneida Reservation Boundaries
Here is the latest pleading from the counties, seeking a stay from the CA2 on the reservation boundaries question:
Here was our last post, with the counties seeking en banc review of the reservation boundaries issue (the court recently denied the petition).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.