Supreme Court Denies Two Indian Law Petitions

Here is the order list.

The two petitions are Malaterre v. Amerind Risk Management and K2 America v. Roland Oil & Gas.

A CVSG for Malaterre v. Amerind?

The Malaterre v. Amerind cert petition is scheduled for this Friday’s Supreme Court Conference. Despite being a SCOTUSblog petition to watch, it really isn’t certworthy (though pretty much any tribal immunity-related petition attracts attention).

Might Malaterre be a candidate for CVSG, assuming it isn’t simply denied? Perhaps, for two reasons. First, the Court asked the OSG five times in the last couple Terms for the government’s views in Indian law cases. Second, the immunity question may depend on the Court’s interpretation and analysis of Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act.

Ramah Navajo Chapter and Arctic Slope Petitions Listed for Today’s SCT Conference

The Ramah cert stage briefs are here.

The Arctic Slope cert stage briefs are here.

Malaterre Cert Stage Reply Brief

Here:

Malaterre Cert Reply

The petition is slated for the January 13 conference.

Cert Petition in In re Beaulieu: Chance for SCT to Clarify PL280 Confusion in Minnesota and Wisconsin

Here:

In re Beaulieu Cert Petition

Here are the questions presented:

1. Does Public Law 280 (18 U.S.C. § 1162 and 28 U.S.C. (1360) give the State of Wisconsin jurisdiction to involuntarily civilly commit a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe who is a legal resident of his tribal reservation under Minnesota’s Commitment and Treatment Act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 253B?)
2. Was Minnesota’s involuntary civil commitment of Beaulieu contrary to, and/or an unreasonable application of this Court’s clearly established law limiting Public Law 280’s grant of civil jurisdiction to private civil matters?
Lower court decision here.

United States Files Cert Petition in Sebelius v. Southern Ute: Another Contract Support Costs Petition

Here:

Sebelius v Southern Ute Petition

The government asks that this petition be held pending the outcome of the other petitions (Ramah Navajo Chapter and Arctic Slope).

Update in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter Cert Stage

Here are additional cert stage briefs:

Ramah Navajo Chapter Cert Opp

Salazar Cert Reply

The cert petition is here.

Amerind Cert Opposition Brief

Here:

Amerind Cert Opp

The petition and other materials are here.

Cavanaugh and Shavanaux Cert Petitions: Challenges to Use of Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions in Federal Sentencing

Here they are:

11-7379 Cavanaugh Cert Petition

11-7731 Shavanaux Cert Petition

The Cavanaugh question presented (Cavanaugh is now represented by Alex Reichart of United States v. Lara fame):

Whether the United States Constitution precludes the use of prior, uncounseled, tribal court misdemeanor convictions as predicate convictions to establish the habitual offender element of Section 117?

The Shavanaux question presented:

Does the Constitution prevent the use of a prior, uncounseled tribal court conviction that received a term of imprisonment to establish an element of the offense?

Here are the Cavanaugh lower court materials. And here are the Shavanaux lower court materials.

There is no circuit split, as far as we can tell. As such, it seems pretty unlikely these petitions will be granted. As we’ve said here, the Ninth Circuit does not appear to have weighed in on the question. Both petitions argue that the CA9 decision in United States v. Ant (882_F.2d_1389) furnishes the desired circuit split. It’s not clean, in that Ant’s tribal court conviction was a guilty plea used as a confession in federal court, not a conviction in a prior case used under Section 117 to establish facts for a habitual offender sentence enhancement. That said, who knows? We’ll see how the government handles it.

H/t Indianz.

 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Cert Petition in Natural Resources Tax Case

Here are the materials:

Final UMUT Petition for Certiorari

Appendix – Final

The questions presented are:

1. Does a state have the power to tax minerals production within the territorial boundaries of an Indian nation when the state provides no services in that location whatsoever, and where the tribe’s members cannot even vote in that state’s elections, amounting to taxation without representation?

2. Does Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989), permit New Mexico to tax oil and gas operators’ activities on Indian trust land even where, as here, “the State has nothing to do with the on-reservation activity,
save tax it”?

Tenth Circuit materials are here.