Fifth Circuit Affirms 3-Year Prison Term for Theft of $18K from Choctaw Casino

Here are the materials in United States v. Nickey:

Unpublished opinion:

Briefs:

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas Background Materials

Merits Stage

Petitioner’s Brief

Cert Stage

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo’s Cert Petition

Brief of Amici Curiae Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, NCAI, NIGA, and USET in support of Cert Petition

Texas’ Cert Opp

Reply of petitioners Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

Brief amicus curiae of United States in favor of SCOTUS review

Texas’ Supplemental brief

Fifth Circuit

Texas v Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 5th Circuit Opinion

Pueblo Brief

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Amicus Brief

Texas Brief

Reply

District Court

1 Complaint

9 texas motion for pi

17 tribe response

18 reply

54 tribe supplemental memo re cause of action

59 texas supplemental brief

64 magistrate report

67 tribe objection

68 texas objections

77 dct order

83 Tribe Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

86 Texas Response

87 Answer + Counterclaims

90 Reply

97 Texas Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

98 Tribe Response

99 Reply

115 DCT Order

121 First Amended Counterclaims

146 Texas Motion for Summary Judgment

147 Texas AG Motion for Summary Judgment

153 Tribe Response to Texas AG

154 Tribe Response to Texas

157 Texas Reply

158 Texas AG Reply

176 DCT Order on MSJ re Counterclaims

183 DCT Order

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Land Claim

Here are the materials in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. City of El Paso:

CA5 Unpublished Opinion

Opening Brief

Professor Amicus Brief

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Amicus Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Rejects Texas’ Effort to Stop Alabama-Coushatta Bingo

Here are the materials in State of Texas v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (E.D. Tex.):

160 Texas Motion for Contempt

161 Tribe Response

162 Reply

163 Surreply

193 Magistrate Order

Prior post here.

Does Brackeen v. Haaland Apply:

This document is primarily for non-lawyers, so while you can @ me about details, there is a reason this document doesn’t get into the nitty gritty question of federal court jurisdiction in state court trials (please note the work the word “may” is doing). We hope this will be helpful for tribal social workers, their state counterparts, reporters, and maybe some lawyers who are trying to understand the implications of a 325 page decision.

Fifth Circuit Briefs in Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation v. McDonald [Alamo]

Here:

Appellant Brief

Brief of Amicus Curiae Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas

Bush Brief

McDonald Brief

Lower court materials here.

Yale Law and Policy Review: ICWA and Commandeering

We’ve been looking forward to this article for a while. Highly recommended.

Here.

This Note argues that ICWA does not commandeer the States. Part I grounds the discussion in the history of genocide and colonization of Indian peoples. This historical context is crucial to understanding the passage of ICWA and the current reactionary effort to dismantle it. Part II provides a brief overview of the anti-commandeering doctrine and lays out the commandeering claims that opponents have leveled against ICWA. Additionally, this Part argues that ICWA fully aligns with modern anti-commandeering doctrine for four reasons. First, it is settled doctrine that state courts must enforce federal law. As such, anti-commandeering doctrine does not apply to state courts in the same way as it applies to the state political branches. Second, Congress may impose federal procedures on state courts to vindicate federal rights, federal causes of action, and–we argue–vital federal interests, including the protection of the federal trust obligation to Indian tribes. The procedural requirements imposed by ICWA on state courts fall within all three of these categories. Third, it is established doctrine that Congress may impose record-keeping requirements on the States, including the record-keeping required by ICWA. Fourth, contrary to the claims of its opponents, ICWA even-handedly regulates states and private entities, consistent with the Constitution’s anti-commandeering requirements. Part III explains the dangerous implications of the anti-commandeering argument for tribal sovereignty, demonstrating the high stakes of ICWA litigation for federal Indian law more broadly. The Note concludes with an exploration of how attacks on ICWA based on anti-commandeering doctrine threaten the very structure of federalism in the United States.