Here:
Reply Brief TK
Lower court materials here.
Eleventh Circuit
Eleventh Circuit Rules against Miccosukee Tribe in Dispute over Everglades Flood Control
Here is the opinion in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States. An excerpt:
Since 1995, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (“Tribe” or “Miccosukee tribe”) has had a running battle with the federal government over the government’s management of the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control (“C&SF Project”) in the Everglades. This case is the most recent chapter. The gist of the four-count complaint the Tribe filed in this case is that the project diverts excessive flood waters over tribal lands—in part to protect other land owners whose properties are located within the project. The District Court dismissed three of the complaint’s counts for failure to state a claim for relief and the fourth on summary judgment. The Tribe appeals these decisions. We affirm.
Here are the briefs:
US Supplemental Letter Oct 2011
US Supplemental Letter Sept 2012
Seminole Tribe Brief in Opposition to Contour Spa Cert Petition
11th Circuit Affirms Attorney Fees Award against EPA in Miccosukee v. United States
Here are the materials:
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Polluted Water Transfer to Lake Okeechobee
Eleventh Circuit Affirms IRS Authority to Issue Subpoenas of Miccosukee Records
Here is the opinion in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States.
An excerpt:
This appeal presents three issues: (1) whether the Miccosukee Tribe may assert tribal sovereign immunity to quash summonses issued to third-party financial institutions by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to obtain tribal financial records relevant to an ongoing tax investigation; (2) whether the Commissioner issued the summonses for a proper purpose; and (3) whether the Tribe has standing to bring an overbreadth challenge to summonses issued to third parties and, if so, whether the summonses were overbroad. In 2010, the Commissioner issued four summonses to third-party financial institutions to determine whether the Tribe had complied with its federal withholding requirements during the period from 2006 to 2009. The Tribe petitioned to quash the summonses on the grounds of sovereign immunity, improper purpose, relevance, bad faith, and overbreadth. The district court denied those petitions. Because we conclude that tribal sovereign immunity does not bar the issuance of these third-party summonses, the district court did not clearly err when it found that the summonses were issued for a proper purpose, and the Tribe lacks standing to challenge the summonses for overbreadth, we affirm.
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials here.
Contour Spa v. Seminole Tribe Cert Petition
Here:
Questions Presented:
1. Does Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613 (2003), provide a basis for finding a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity where an Indian Tribe has expressly waived sovereign immunity, is sued in state court, removes to federal court, and then asserts sovereign immunity based on the Tribe’s concealment of the fact that the Tribe did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s lease approval requests?
2. Does Justice Brandeis’ opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919). support the concept of tribal sovereign immunity or should that accidental doctrine, questioned in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998), be revisited and discarded.
3. Does the Indian Civil Rights Act, Title 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(5) and (a)(8) create an implicit cause of action permitting the Tribe to be sued for the taking of property without due process of law?
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.