The next two Supreme Court conferences will be big ones in Indian Law. Here is a roster of cases that will be considered:
June 16, 2011
Miccosukee Tribe v. Kraus-Anderson
South Dakota et al. v. Yankton Sioux
June 23, 2011
cert petition
California’s Supplemental Brief in Response to OSG Recommendation to Deny Cert in Rincon Band Revenue Sharing Case
Here is that brief:
Supplemental Brief of Petitioners in Response to United States
The Supreme Court placed this case up for discussion at the June 23 Conference.
Osage Supplemental Brief in Response to SG’s Invitation Brief
Here:
Miccosukee Supplemental Brief in Support of Cert Petition in Miccosukee v. Kraus-Anderson
OSG Recommends Denial of Certiorari in Osage Nation v. Irby
EEOC v. Peabody Coal: SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day
SCOTUSblog has named EEOC v. Peabody Coal Co. its petition of the day:
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:
I think this petition is a conditional cross-petition though, which isn’t up for serious consideration unless the underlying petition is granted. There are actually two — one by Peabody Coal and one by Navajo. The conditional cross-petition notes that the government will separately respond to the cert petitions.
South Dakota Cert Opposition Brief in Yankton v. Army Corps Cert Petition
Here:
South Dakota Response to Yankton v Army Corps Cert Petition
This is the petition that the OSG recommended be held in abeyance pending the Court’s decision on whether to grant cert in the Hein/Daugaard/South Dakota/etc. v. Yankton cases.
US Files Invitation Brief Opposing Cert in Brown v. Rincon Band (IGRA Revenue Sharing Case)
Here is the brief:
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida Cert Petition
Here:
Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida
Questions presented:
1. Whether the court of appeals contravened this Court’s decisions in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), and City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005), 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.
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.
United States v. New York: Government Cert Petition in Oneida Indian Nation Land Claims
Here is the petition:
Here is the question presented:
The Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793 (also known as the Nonintercourse Act) stated in relevant part that “no purchase or grant of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indians or nation or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by a treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the constitution.” Ch. 19, § 8, 1 Stat. 330. The question presented is as follows:
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.