Here are the materials so far in Halverson v. Haaland (D. Mont.):
Crow Nation
Montana Federal Court Dismisses RICO Suit against Crow Nation Nursing Home, For Now
Here are the new materials in Wilhite v. Littlelight (D. Mont.):
78 DCT Order Adopting Magistrate Report
Prior post here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Tribal Jurisdiction Case
Here is today’s order list.
The denied petition is Big Horn County Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Big Man.

Cert Petition in Big Horn County Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Big Man
Here:
Question presented:
Whether an Indian tribal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a tribally created claim as an “other means” of regulating a nonmember federally funded and federally regulated electric cooperative tasked with providing electrical service to all customers within its service territory, including tribal members on Indian reservations?
Lower court materials here.

Update:
Ninth Circuit Affirms Crow Jurisdiction over Utility
Here is the unpublished opinion in Big Horn County Electric Cooperative v. Big Man.
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Argument in Big Horn County Electric v. Big Man
Here:
Briefs are here.
One of my favorite people, Melody McCoy, a Cherokee citizen and Michigan alum, argued for the respondents. Izhaadaa giizhigowande!
Continue readingWyoming Appellate Court Orders Hearing in Herrera Matter; State Appeals to State SCT
Here is the opinion in Herrera v. State of Wyoming:
State SCT cert stage briefs:
ResponseObjection – Petition for review
Prior post here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Big Horn County Electric Cooperative v. Big Man
Here:
Lower court materials here.
Liz Reese Commentary on Cooley Decision
From SCOTUSBlog, here is “Court unanimously holds that Indian tribes retain the inherent power to police non-Indians.”
Decision and materials here.
SCOTUS Reverses in United States v. Cooley
Here is the unanimous opinion from Justice Breyer.
An excerpt:
The question presented is whether an Indian tribe’s police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Indian on a public right-of-way that runs through an Indian reservation. The search and detention, we assume, took place based on a potential violation of state or federal law prior to the suspect’s transport to the proper nontribal authorities for prosecution.
We have previously noted that a tribe retains inherent sovereign authority to address “conduct [that] threatens or has some direct effect on . . . the health or welfare of the tribe.” Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544, 566 (1981); see also Strate v. A–1 Contractors, 520 U. S. 438, 456, n. 11 (1997). We believe this statement of law governs here. And we hold the tribal officer possesses the authority at issue.
Another excerpt:
More broadly, cross-deputization agreements are difficult to reach, and they often require negotiation between other authorities and the tribes over such matters as training, reciprocal authority to arrest, the “geographical reach of the agreements, the jurisdiction of the parties, liability of officers performing under the agreements, and sovereign immunity.” Fletcher, Fort, & Singel, Indian Country Law Enforcement and Cooperative Public Safety Agreements, 89 Mich. Bar J. 42, 44 (2010).
Here are the briefs and other background materials.
You must be logged in to post a comment.