cert petition

Adams v. Dodge Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

21- Petition.pdfDownload

Questions presented:

1. Whether federal plaintiffs seeking to challenge their non-federal prosecution on the basis of bad faith face a heightened pleading standard.

2. Whether actions taken by the clerk of a non-federal court to impede review of a habeas petition obviate the petitioner’s need to further exhaust remedies in that court.

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Indian Tax Case — Albrecht v. Riverside County

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is yesterday’s order list.

Cert petition here.

Amicus brief:

Amici Brief Twenty-Nine Palms.pdfDownload

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Two Indian Fishing Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

The court denied cert in Scudero v. Alaska (cert stage materials) and Snoqualmie v. Washington (cert stage materials).

Where cert petitions go to die — U.S. Supreme Court interiors. Corridor, U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Penobscot and Yakama Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the materials in Penobscot Nation v. Frey.

Here are the materials in in Klickitat County v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation.

Snoqualmie v. Washington Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Snoqualmie Cert Petition.pdfDownload

Questions presented:

  1. Whether the federal courts have the constitutional authority to unilaterally abrogate all rights guaranteed to an Indian tribe under a treaty with the United States absent congressional action.
  2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by applying issue preclusion to hold that Snoqualmie was not a party to the Treaty even though the Executive Branch expressly recognizes Snoqualmie as a Treaty party.

Lower court materials here.

Amicus briefs in support of the petition:

Indian Law Scholars Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
Sauk-Suiattle Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
Cougar Den Amicus Brief.pdfDownload

Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Becker Pet. for Cert..pdfDownload

Questions presented:

Whether a federal court may force a non-consenting, non-Indian plaintiff to exhaust his claims in tribal court when the defendant tribe has expressly consented by contract to federal or state court jurisdiction and waived both sov- ereign immunity and tribal exhaustion.

Whether a state court may adjudicate a contractual dispute between a tribe and a non-Indian where the tribe has provided specific contrac- tual consent to state court jurisdiction; or in- stead, whether the Constitution or laws of the United States prohibit such exercises of state court jurisdiction unless the State has assumed general civil jurisdiction over tribal territory under Sections 1322 and 1326 of Title 25.

Circuit split?

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Brief in Opposition.pdfDownload
Becker Reply Brief.pdfDownload

Albrecht v. County of Riverside Cert Petition [Leasing Regs + Taxation Preemption]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

albrecht-cert-petitionDownload

Lower court materials here.

Questions presented:

  1. Do the federal regulations governing the leasing of Indian lands preempt state and local governments
    from taxing the leasehold interest conveyed by the regulated leases?
  2. Does the express preemption provision of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934—which prohibits
    state taxes on “any interest in lands” that the government “acquire[s] pursuant to this Act … in trust
    for [an] Indian tribe or individual Indian”—apply when the government acquires extended trust rights
    pursuant to the Act?

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Three [I Mean Four] Indian Law Cases; Still Waiting on Brackeen

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

The petitions denied were Big Sandy’s tax case, Jamestown S’Klallam’s U&A-related petition, and Self v. Trinidad Rancheria, another immovable property exception case. [UPDATE: Oops, forgot Dakota Access.]

In case anything happens, we’ll be outside waiting.

Cert Petitions Filed on Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Internet Lending

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Treppa v. Hengle:

treppa-petitionDownload

Appendix

Treppa Application for Stay

Hengle Opposition

Reply

Questions presented:

  1. Whether a court can invalidate an agreement to have an arbitrator resolve questions of arbitrability (a “delegation clause”) based on the court’s interpretation of a separate choice-of-law provision.
  2. Whether sovereign immunity bars private plaintiffs from suing tribal government officials, in their official
    capacities, for alleged violations of state law

Lower court materials here.

In the tule swamp–upper lake Pomo [LOC]

Here is the petition in a related case, Asner v. Hengle:

asner-petition-and-appendixDownload

Question presented:

Can a federal court refuse to enforce the delegation clause of an arbitration agreement on the ground that a choice-of-law provision applicable to the arbitration agreement as a whole prospectively waives federal rights?

Samish Indian Nation v. Washington Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

samish-cert-petitionDownload

Appendix

Questions presented:

  1. Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and tribal sovereign immunity deprived the lower courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe’s claim, requiring dismissal on that ground under United States Supreme Court precedent including Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1996).
  2. Whether, under United States Supreme Court precedent including Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) and Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007), an issue preclusion dismissal is a merits dismissal and excluded from the threshold grounds among which a federal court may choose to dismiss a case before establishing its subject-matter jurisdiction.
  3. Whether, under United States Supreme Court precedent including Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007), jurisdictional issues in this case were not “arduous” or “difficult to determine” because the lower courts could readily determine that they lacked jurisdiction, such that those courts committed reversible error in bypassing determination of their subject-matter jurisdiction and proceeding to dismiss the case instead with prejudice on issue preclusion grounds.
“Siwash” Indians Harvesting Hops at Snoqualmie

Lower court materials here.