Here:
See, I wasn’t joking when I said this here:
“Wayland and its surrounding townships long have hoped for more industry and economic growth – I know, I grew up there. So it’s just one guy for all we know who doesn’t want that. He’s pretty firmly in a tiny minority,” Fletcher said.
Seems odd to me, but maybe SCOTUSblog thinks of the Native Hawaiians and the State of Hawaii as a disfavored party in the Supreme Court.
Here:
Corboy v. Louie
Docket: 11-336
Issue(s): (1) Whether petitioners have standing to seek a refund of their own taxes; and (2) whether the Equal Protection Clause precludes a state or municipality from creating tax exemptions that are available only to members of a certain race.Certiorari stage documents:
Here is today’s order list. Next week, the Court will issue the order list of denials.
Presumably, that means United States v. New York, Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County, EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co., Navajo Nation v. EEOC, and Peabody Western Coal Co. v. EEOC have all been denied, although that won’t be confirmed until later.
The “long conference” is next Monday, and so the 2011 Term is under way. Here are the cases that are on the radar, with an emphasis on the petitions on the agenda for Monday.
Petitions Slated for the Long Conference:
Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County (No. 10-1420) and United States v. New York (10-1404), involving the Oneida land claims and Sherrill, is already a petition to watch. The fact that the federal government filed a petition is huge, but the Court has denied similar petitions….
Navajo Nation v. EEOC (No. 10-981) and Peabody Western Coal Co. v. EEOC (No. 10-986), along with EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co. (No. 10-1080), a conditional cross-petition. This case involves the long-running Navajo tribal employment preference act. Although labeled a petition to watch, the feds are opposing the main petitions, and this one will be denied. A Rule 19 case.
Petitions Slated for Later Conferences:
Arctic Slope Native Assn. v. Sebelius (No. 11-33). This petition involving contract support costs under the Indian Self-Determination Act has a strong chance, with a circuit split between the Federal Circuit (here) and the Tenth Circuit (here and perhaps here).
Salazar v. Patchak (No. 11-247) and Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak (No. 11-246). This one has already been slated a “petition to watch.” The federal government’s effort to protect federal immunity under the Quiet Title Act is almost certain to be granted.
Gila River Indian Community v. Lyon (No. 11-80). Like the EEOC case, a Rule 19 case. One of these days, the SCT will hear a Rule 19 case where an Indian tribe is the missing indispensable party.
Seneca Telephone v. Miami Tribe (No. 11-183). Any case with tribal sovereign immunity as the backdrop has a chance, but this one has no split and no real major issue.
Reed v. Gutierrez (No. 10-1390). Another immunity case, even less likely to be granted than Seneca Telephone, given that Kiowa completely controls this one without doubt.
Corboy v. Louie (No. 11-336). Any petition involving the Native Hawaiians is bound to attract some Justices’ attention, but this one is being brought by tax protesters, not a favored party in the Supreme Court.
Evans v. Wapato Heritage (No. 11-215).
Here:
Here:
Here is the question presented:
Whether the Hawaii courts erred in failing to recognize that petitioners have standing to seek a refund of their own taxes and that the Equal Protection Clause precludes a State or municipality from creating tax exemptions that are available only to members of a certain race.
Here:
This must be because the federal government is the petitioner, but this is merely a conditional petition. The government opposes Peabody’s and Navajo’s petitions, and those aren’t “petitions to watch.”
Here:
Title: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peabody Western Coal Company
Docket: 10-1080
Issue(s): Whether the Secretary of the Interior is a “required party,” within the meaning of Rule 19(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to an action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a private employer, where the challenged conduct was undertaken pursuant to a federally approved mining lease between the employer and an Indian Tribe, but no federal agency is a party to the lease.Certiorari stage documents:
Here. An excerpt:
So, the potentially huge question for Indian country revolves around the Quiet Title Act, Fletcher said. “If the immunity barrier in the QTA can be gotten around, then much trust land recently taken into trust could be challenged by virtually anyone who is strongly opposed to trust land acquisitions. What’s remarkable about this case is the standing holding. Basically, all Patchak can prove is that he very strongly opposes Indian gaming. He’s not actually injured by it at all, other than worries about the ‘rural character’ of his community, whatever that means. Wayland and its surrounding townships long have hoped for more industry and economic growth – I know, I grew up there. So it’s just one guy for all we know who doesn’t want that. He’s pretty firmly in a tiny minority,” Fletcher said.
Gun Lake presents a number of arguments in seeking the high court’s review. Because the appeals court decision is on conflict with four other appeals court decisions in similar cases it has “opened a substantial gap” in the federal government’s sovereign immunity under the QTA from litigation challenging its title to trust or restricted Indian lands, as well as federal lands generally, the lawsuit says. If the appeals court ruling is left in place, that means anyone with a gripe could create a challenge in any case in which the federal government “claims an interest” whether it is Indian lands, national parks, public lands, easements or any other lands covered by the QTA’s terms and exceptions.
Also, because the D.C. Circuit hears almost all lawsuits against the federal government, prospective plaintiffs will now be able to “forum shop” their way around the United States’ sovereign immunity in disputes challenging the federal government’s title to land or “avoid the QTA and controlling circuit law altogether by simply filing their lawsuits in the District of Columbia,” the Gun Lake petition says.
The federal government’s petition asks the high court to consider “(w)hether (the Administrative Procedures Act) waives the sovereign immunity of the United States from a suit challenging its title to lands that it holds in trust for an Indian Tribe,” and more directly seeks the high court’s review of the Carcieri ruling in asking “(w)hether a private individual who alleges injuries resulting from the operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust land has prudential standing to challenge the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to take title to that land in trust, on the ground that the decision was not authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act.”
Among the arguments presented by the federal government in seeking the high court’s review is that the Administrative Procedure Act under which Patchak filed his lawsuit against the Interior Department does not allow an end run around the Quiet Title Act’s provision that precludes any person from seeking to divest the United States of title to Indian trust lands.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.