Here, page 11 of the order list.
The Court had CVSG’d this petition, and the SG recommended denial.
Corboy v. Louie
Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief in Corboy v. Louie
Here.
Interesting brief, filed in response to the SG’s invitation brief recommending denial of the petition. I wonder how many of these briefs directly insult the SG’s office. This one skirts the edge of insult, I think, questioning the candor of the SG.
SG Recommends Denial of Cert Petition in Corboy v. Louie
From SCOTUSBlog (brief here and embedded in the post):
Corboy v. Louie is a challenge to a Hawaii tax exemption that is available only to those who meet the state’s definition of “native Hawaiians.” The Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed the case on the ground that the petitioners (who are not native Hawaiians) lacked standing. The federal government agreed with the respondents that certiorari is not warranted, for several reasons. First, it regarded the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision as resting on an adequate and independent state ground. Second, and in any event, it alleged that the petitioners would not have standing under Article III. Third, and finally, the Court does not need to review the petitioners’ equal protection claim, which is not properly presented and could be affected by recent legal and political developments in Hawaii.
Petition stage briefs are here.
Quick Commentary on SCOTUS, Patchak, and Corboy
The Supreme Court granted cert in an Indian law case where the petition was filed in favor of tribal interests. This is, of course, the Patchak case involving the Department of Interior’s decision to take land into trust for gaming purposes on behalf of the Gun Lake Band. The last time the Court granted a petition filed on behalf of tribal interests was Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt, a case decided in 2005. The Court might also grant cert this Term in Ramah Navajo v. Salazar. Key to these successful cert petitions is the participation of the United States as supportive of the granting of the petition (if not the merits). In fact, every cert petition granted on behalf of tribal interests in recent memory has the support of the federal government, the last one (I believe) being Mississippi Band Choctaw v. Holyfield. Only Justice Scalia remains from that Court.
Key point: A cert petition on behalf of tribal interests has almost no chance of being granted by the Roberts Court unless the United States favors of the petition. Even then, as the Oneida and Cayuga land claims petitions demonstrates, it is a bit of a crap shoot.
Corboy v. Louie is more representative of where the Supreme Court is in relation to Indian law (though I suppose this isn’t an Indian law case, precisely). There’s nothing certworthy in this case whatsover (no split, nothing of national importance, a case brought by a private tax protester), but the Court is thinking carefully about this case perhaps because Indian law-type legal doctrines are outside of what Dean Getches called the “mainstream” of constitutional law, and should be reeled in. I have no doubt the OSG will recommend a denial because there simply is nothing worthy of Supreme Court review, but the fact this isn’t already a denied petition is telling.
Key point: A cert petition opposing tribal interests (regardless of its merit) receives more attention from the Supreme Court than a petition favoring tribal interests. End of story.
Supreme Court Grants Cert in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band v. Patchak
The order list is here. Additional commentary on the case is likely.
In the same order, The Court CVSG’d Corboy v. Louie and denied the motion in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States to file a writ of cert out of time.
Cert Opposition Brief in Corboy v. Louie (Challenge to Hawaii Homestead Lease Qualification)
Here.
Tax Protesters Petition Opposing Native Hawaiians is SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day
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:
Corboy v. Louie Cert Petition re: Hawaiian Natives
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.
The lower court materials are here.
Hawaii SCT Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Native Hawaiian Homesite Tax Position
Here is the opinion in Corboy v. Louie. The majority would dismiss the challenge on standing grounds.
A concurring opinion disagreeing with the majority on the sanding issue is here. Justice Acoba would dismiss the challenge on grounds the United States was not joined as a necessary party.
Turtle Talk 