Supreme Court Denies Cert in Harjo and Elliott

The order list is here, with the Harjo and Elliott cases listed on page 3.

Neither decision is a big surprise, as the Court grants cert in only a small percentage of cert petitions. The trademark suit against the Redskins will continue through different plaintiffs, but the laches argument that served to defeat the Harjo plaintiffs applies with virtually equal force to the new plaintiffs. (AP article here).

The Elliott case is a welcome relief, given that the Court seems to grant cert petitions filed by non-Indians against tribal jurisdiction almost randomly. Here, one suspects the fact that the Ninth Circuit merely was remanding to tribal court for a decision on the merits may have some importance, but the Court has previously granted cert in cases prior to a tribal court decision on the merits (see Strate). The takeaway from the Elliott cert petition denial is simply that one must continue to assume the Court continues to look at tribal jurisdiction cases carefully, but makes its certiorari decisions based on some utterly random calculus.

We surely would love to know if Justice Sotomayor weighed in on these cases in any way, and if so, how.

Supreme Court Indian Law Petitions Set for This Week’s Conference

Two important cert petitions, Elliott v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court (09-187) and Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc. (09-326) are set for this Friday’s Conference.

Our sense is that the Court will decline to hear either case, and there’s no word from SCOTUSBlog on these petitions yet. However, the Court’s interest is always heightened when a tribal court asserts jurisdiction over a non-Indian, as is the case in the Elliott case. And there appears to be a circuit split (on trademark grounds) in the Harjo case, with one side of the split supposedly involving an opinion from then-Third Circuit judge Alito. So there is a possibility in each case.

Here are the materials in Elliott:

Docket Sheet

Petition for Cert

Brief in Opposition

And here are the materials in Harjo:

Continue reading

Elliott v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court Cert Petition

This case arises out of a major forest fire (the Rodeo-Chediski fire) partially caused by Valinda Jo Elliott on White Mountain land (she started the Chediski part). The tribe sued her in tribal court for damages related to the fire. On her federal claim, she argued that the tribal court could not have jurisdiction over her. The Ninth Circuit’s holding was that tribal court jurisdiction was plausible (read: not entirely frivolous) and ordered her to exhaust tribal court remedies. As such, it appears the reason the Supreme Court would grant cert here is because four members of the Court believe it is time to either overrule or significantly undermine National Farmers Union and Iowa Mutual, the key cases in the tribal court exhaustion doctrine

Here is the petition — Elliott Cert Petition

The question presented:

Can a tribal court assert jurisdiction over a non-consenting non-Indian and force her to defend against civil claims in that unfamiliar forum when it is plain that the tribal court has neither regulatory nor adjudicatory jurisdiction and where the conduct at issue by the non-consenting non-Indian on tribal land does not and cannot ever threaten or directly effect the tribal political integrity, economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe?

The lower court materials are here.

CA9 Remands Nonmember Jurisdiction Case to Tribal Court

Here is the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Elliott v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court. An excerpt:

We are sympathetic to Plaintiff’s concerns about defending her actions in an unfamiliar court system. But, because tribal court jurisdiction is plausible, principles of comity require us to give the tribal courts a full opportunity to determine their own jurisdiction in the first instance.

Here are the materials:

Elliott Opening Brief

White Mountain Appellee Brief

Arizona Inter Tribal Council Amicus Brief

Elliott Reply Brief