Here are the materials in In re Tam:
Sue Sponte Hearing En Banc Order
Panel materials:
Federal Circuit
Federal Circuit Rejects Shinnecock Nation’s Judicial Takings Claims re: Dismissal of Land Claims under Sherrill
Here is the opinion in Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States.
An excerpt:
Accordingly, we affirm the United States Court of Federal Claims’ determination that the Nation’s breach of trust claims are not yet ripe for review, vacate its ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over those claims, and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the breach of trust claims without prejudice.
More:
A similar analysis applies here. The Nation alleges that in applying the doctrine of laches to bar its land claim, the district court improperly “took away the Nation’s legal right to sue for compensation for its stolen land.” The Court of Federal Claims, however, is without authority to adjudicate the Nation’s claim that it suffered a compensable taking at the hands of the district court. See Allustiarte, 256 F.3d at 1352; Joshua, 17 F.3d at 380. The court has no jurisdiction to review the decisions “of district courts and cannot entertain a taking[s] claim that requires the court to scrutinize the actions of another tribunal.” Innovair, 632 F.3d at 1344 (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). As the government correctly notes, “[d]eciding whether the district court’s judgment resulted in an unconstitutional taking of the Nation’s property would require the Court of Federal Claims to review the judgment and pass on its correctness.” Just as the plaintiffs’ takings claim in Allustiarte was an improper collateral attack on the judgment of the bankruptcy courts, the Nation’s proposed judicial takings claim is an attempt to mount an improper collateral attack on the judgment of the district court.
Federal Circuit Briefs in Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States
Federal Circuit Briefs in Hopi Tribe v. United States
Guest Post — Anthony Jones on the Federal Circuit’s Recent Trademark Decision and Its Import for the Washington Football Team’s Nickname
Patently-O commentator Mark Bartholomew points to this Federal Circuit case. The issue is when a trademark may be denied for containing “matter which may disparage” a group of persons. At issue in this case is a proposed mark of STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA which was denied for violation of this disparagement provision. The Federal Circuit approved a two-prong test. Bartholomew further states:
- “Under the first prong of that test, a court must determine the likely meaning of the mark in question. Under the test’s second prong, the court examines whether the likely meaning refers to an identifiable group and, if so, whether that meaning is disparaging to a substantial composite of that group.”
- “The stakes are high here because the Federal Circuit is the typical route for appeals of [Trademark Trial and Appeal Board] decisions, and a highly anticipated decision from the TTAB on disparagement involving the WASHINGTON REDSKINS mark is due soon.”
There ought to be little doubt that the term “Redskins” refers to an identifiable group – i.e., American Indians. As to the issue of disparagement, the Federal Circuit has endorsed a rather permissive evidentiary standard, which allowed for consideration of anonymous blog posts to show public perception and reaction to a proposed mark, and statements from members of the disparaged group stating concern over such disparagement. One key issue that the Court did not address is what constitutes a “substantial composite” of the referenced group.
Federal Circuit Affirms Council for Tribal Employment Rights v. United States Without Opinion
Briefs and lower court materials here.
Opening Federal Circuit Brief in Shinnecock Nation v. United States
Supreme Court Denies Wolfchild/Zephier Cert Petitions
Here is today’s order list.
The petitions are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.