Here is the opinion in Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of Minnesota v. Zinke (D.D.C.).
Briefs previously posted here.
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether a tribe that opted out of the Indian Reorganization Act can have its status under the Act revived under the Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2202, even though the United States did not hold land in trust for that tribe at the time the tribe sought a land-in-trust acquisition.
2. Whether the land-in-trust provision of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5108, exceeds Congress’ authority under the Indian Commerce Clause, Art. I, § S, cl. 3.
3. Whether § 5108’s standardless delegation of authority to acquire land “for Indians” is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
4. Whether the federal government’s control over state land must be categorically exclusive for the Enclave Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, to prohibit the removal of that land from state jurisdiction.
Here is the complaint in Chinook Indian Nation v. Zinke (W.D. Wash.):
Here are the materials so far in Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of Minnesota v. Zinke (D.D.C.):
Here are the materials in Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley v. Zinke:
Briefs:
Other posts with lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Villa v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Frank’s Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission (W.D. Wash.):
33 Frank’s Landing Motion for Summary J
Here are the materials so far in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians v. Jewell (D.D.C.):
Update:
You must be logged in to post a comment.