Here:
Navajo Opposition to EEOC Conditional Cert Petition
Peabody Coal Opposition to EEOC Conditional Cert Petition
The EEOC’s conditional petition is here.
The original cert petitions from Navajo and Peabody are here.
cert petition
Cert Petition in Salazar v. Patchak
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether 5 U.S.C. § 702 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.
2. Whether 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, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984.
Gun Lake’s petition is here, along with a link to lower court materials.
Gun Lake Band Cert Petition in Patchak
Here:
2011.08.24 – Gun Lake Cert Petition.
I. Whether the Quiet Title Act and its reservation of the United States’ sovereign immunity in suits involving “trust or restricted Indian lands” apply to all suits concerning land in which the United States “claims an interest,” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), as the Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or whether they apply only when the
plaintiff claims title to the land, as the D.C. Circuit held.II. Whether prudential standing to sue under federal law can be based on either (i) the plaintiff’s ability to “police” an agency’s compliance with the law, as held by the D.C. Circuit but rejected by the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, or (ii) interests protected by a different federal statute than the one on which suit is based, as held by the D.C. Circuit but rejected by the Federal Circuit.
Lower court materials here.
Evans v Wapato Heritage LLC Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
I. Should this Court grant this petition to address the court of appeals’ and district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over this matter?
II. Should this Court grant this petition to address the court of appeals’ and district court’s erroneous interpretation of 25 U.S.C. § 410 as not applying to the assignment and attachment of Evans’s Individual Indian Money Account?III. Should this Court grant this petition to address the court of appeals’ and district court’s erroneous grant of summary judgment when there are genuine issues of material fact?
IV. Should this Court grant this petition to address the court of appeals’ and district court’s erroneous exclusion of Evan’s expert evidence on damages?
Indian Land Working Group Amicus Brief in Support of Petition in Gila River Indian Community v. Lyon
U.S. v. New York/Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County — SCOTUSblog Petitions to Watch
No surprise here. Here they are, from the SCOTUSblog site:
Title: United States v. State of New York
Docket: 10-1404
Issue(s): Whether the United States may be barred from enforcing the Nonintercourse Act against a state that repeatedly purchased and resold (at a substantial profit) Indian lands in violation of the Act between 1795 and 1846, based on the passage of time and the transfer of the unlawfully obtained Indian lands into the hands of third parties, when the United States seeks monetary relief only against the state.Certiorari stage documents:
- Opinion below (2d Cir.)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief of National Congress of American Indians
- Amicus brief of Law Professors
- Petitioner’s reply
Title: Oneida Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, New York
Docket: 10-1420
Issue(s): (1) Whether the court of appeals contravened this Court’s decisions in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida and City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation by ruling that “equitable considerations” rendered petitioners’ claims for money damages for the dispossession of their tribal lands in violation of federal law void ab initio; and (2) whether the court of appeals impermissibly encroached on the legislative power of Congress by relying on “equitable considerations” to bar petitioners’ claims as untimely, even though they were brought within the statute of limitations fixed by Congress for the precise tribal land claims at issue.Certiorari stage documents:
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Files Amicus Brief in Support of Arctic Slope’s Cert Petition
Here is the brief:
Chamber of Commerce Amicus Brief FINAL
The cert petition is here. The Chamber of Commerce also filed an amicus brief supporting tribal interests in Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt.
Seneca Telephone v. Miami Tribe Cert Petition
Here (updated 8/24/11 with better pdf):
Seneca Telephone Cert Petition
Questions Presented:
1. Under federal preemption principles invoked in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), and specifically, the principles determinative on the applicability of the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity in a regulatory context, did the Oklahoma Supreme Court err and issue a conflicting ruling with this Court’s decision in Rice when it failed to apply the preemption principles to the present cases?
2. Under the preemption principles invoked in Rice, as applied to the present cases, does the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151et. seq.) delegate to the States the authority to exercise jurisdiction over tribal entities when Congress confers to the States the power to exercise jurisdiction over all intrastate communications?
Lower court materials are here.
News Coverage of Gun Lake Band/USA Intent to File Cert Petition in Patchak
From Indianz.
Here is the link to our post on the D.C. panel opinion.
And to Patricia Millett’s commentary on the decision.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.