Here is the profile of Denezpi v. United States.
Here is the profile of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas.
Here, starting around 18:15, right after the Leeroy Jenkins discussion.
Leeroy Jenkins starts around 1:23 in this YouTube video.
Blurb: “Leah recaps Denezpi v. United States, an important case about tribal sovereignty, with Matthew Fletcher(Michigan State University & Chief Justice of the Pokagon band of Potawatomi Indians Court of Appeals) & April Youpee-Roll (Munger Tolles & Olson), which may involve … Neil Gorsuch’s heel turn in Indian law?!?”
Here is the announcement on the advocates who will argue for the tribe and the individual Indian parties on Tuesday.
Background materials on the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo case here.
Background materials on the Denezpi case here.
I have a few notes.
By my count, after James Anaya argued Nevada v. Hicks, after Tuesday there will have been 37 individual Indian or tribal parties represented at oral argument in the Supreme Court. None of those parties were represented by an American Indian advocate. In only two cases did a woman represent the Indian or tribe — just over 5 percent of cases, a truly pathetic figure. [No Native advocates argued for other parties, either.]
To be sure, the end of Native oral advocacy was intentional. It can be traced to the establishment of a new national strategy adopted by tribal leaders and national orgs in 2001. That strategy that privileged members of the Supreme Court Bar — a small, exclusive group of elite and privileged lawyers — to argue those cases instead of relatively inexperienced advocates.Continue reading
Merits Stage Materials
Cert Stage Materials
Tenth Circuit Materials
District Court Materials