Here:
The petition of the day is:
Michigan v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Docket: 11-541
Issue(s): (1) Whether a request for multiple types of preliminary injunctive relief requires a balancing of harms with respect to each form of relief requested; and (2) whether a party’s statement that it is “considering” implementing the relief requested in a motion for injunction is a ground for denying the injunction.Certiorari stage documents:
Here:
Here is the question presented:
Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over civil actions that seek to adjudicate ownership of or possession to any interest in real property the title to which is held by the United States in trust on behalf of Indians, as stated in Boisclair v. Superior Court, 801 P.2d 305 (Cal. 1990)(en banc).
Here are the lower court materials.
Here is that brief:
The government conceded a circuit split. The SG also states that the government will be filing a cert petition in a parallel case — Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Salazar — but perhaps since that case is a class action, the OSG argues that the Arctic Slope case would be a better vehicle.
Here is that petition:
Here.
Here:
Asian Carp Cert Pet_10 26 2011
Questions presented:
This multi-sovereign dispute involves the imminent invasion of Asian carp into the Great Lakes ecosystem. Although the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that catastrophic harm has a “good” or “perhaps even a substantial” likelihood of occurring, Pet. App. 4a–5a, it affirmed the district court’s denial of even the plaintiffs’ most modest requests for injunctive relief. The Seventh Circuit’s opinion raises two questions for this Court’s review:
1. Whether a request for multiple types of preliminary-injunctive relief requires a balancing of harms with respect to each form of relief requested.
2. Whether a party’s statement that it is “considering” implementing the relief requested in a motion for injunction is a ground for denying the injunction.
Seventh Circuit decision here.
Here:
Gila River Indian Community v. Lyon
Pending petition
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term 11-80 9th Cir. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Issue: (1) Whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b), courts may adjudicate and compromise legal rights in land to which the United States holds title without the United States’ participation in the litigation; and (2) whether, in light of this Court’s recent decision in United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, No. 10-382 (June 13, 2011), litigation compromising the United States’ title in land can proceed in the United States’ absence as long as an Indian tribe is a party to the litigation.
Briefs and Documents
Certiorari-stage documents
Filed yesterday, I’m told:
Question presented:
Is apparent authority sufficient to bind an Indian tribe to a waiver of the tribe’s federally protected sovereign immunity, when the purported waiver is executed by a tribal official acting outside the scope of his actual authority?
Lower court materials are here.
Here:
LaBuff Petition for Certiorari dated August 26, 2011
Lower court materials here.
Here are the questions presented:
1. Has the Ninth Circuit, contrary to United States v. Rogers, erroneously minimized consideration of the undisputed facts that petitioner is not socially recognized as an Indian, does not participate in Indian social life, and does not hold himself out as an Indian and thereby created a conflict with the Eighth Circuit?
2. Did the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner is an Indian person where he is not a member of a tribe, is not socially recognized as an Indian, does not participate in Indian social life, and does not hold himself out as an Indian?
I’m still trying to understand how a reasonable jury of non-Indians can decided beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is an “Indian” under the Major Crimes Act. 🙂
Here are the materials in United States v. LaBuff:
The court originally decided this case without publishing the opinion, but the government successfully petitioned the court to published it. Here are those materials. A cert petition is pending (docket no. 11-6168, definitely one to watch!):
Update with additional Ninth Circuit materials:
Doc 27 Objection filed October 18, 2011
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.