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]


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.


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.

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Claim that Tribe “Stole” Jackpot

Here are the materials in Dotson v. Tuniuca-Biloxi Gaming Commission:

Per Curiam Opinion

Dotson Brief

Tribe Brief

Selected lower court materials in Dotson v. Tuniuca-Biloxi Gaming Commission (W.D. La.) here:

52-1 Motion to Dismiss

77 Magistrate Report

81 DCT Order

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas Cert Petition


Ysleta Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether the Restoration Act provides the Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities on its lands (including bingo), as set forth in the plain language of Section 107(b), the Act’s legislative history, and this Court’s holding in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), or whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision affirming Ysleta I correctly subjects the Pueblo to all Texas gaming regulations.

Lower court materials here.


Texas Brief in Opposition


Fifth Circuit Briefs in Immunity/Federal Jurisdiction Case Involving Hoopa Valley Tribe

Here are the briefs in Mitchell v. Bailey:


Hoopa Appeal Brief_ECF Filed


Hoopa Reply

Lower court materials in Mitchell v. Bailey (W.D. Tex.):

1 Complaint

32 Hoopa Motion to Dismiss

34 Response

35 Hoopa Motion to Substitute US as Party

40 Response

41 Reply in Support of 32

47 Reply in Support of 35

48 DCT Order