Idaho Supreme Court

Idaho Supreme Court Rejects Indian Challenge to Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in State of Idaho ex rel. Wasden v. Maybee.

An excerpt:

Scott B. Maybee challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the State of Idaho. Maybee argues that Idaho’s Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement Complementary Act (Complementary Act) is inapplicable to his conduct, as the Complementary Act was not intended to regulate unstamped cigarettes sold in interstate commerce. Maybee also contends that the Complementary Act is preempted as it applies to him, under both the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Indian Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as Maybee is a Native American, living and conducting business upon a reservation located in the state of New York. Maybee argues that the tobacco permit requirement of Idaho’s Prevention of Minors’ Access to Tobacco Act (MAA) is likewise preempted by the Indian Commerce Clause.

Idaho Supreme Court Dismisses Claim by Gambling Addicts that State Indian Gaming Law was Unconstitutional

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Knox v. State of Idaho. And the court’s press release.

From the opinion:

This is an action seeking to have Idaho Code §§ 67-429B and 67-429C declared unconstitutional. The district court dismissed this action on the ground that the Plaintiffs lacked standing. It concluded that the relief sought would not redress the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. We affirm.

City of Pocatello v. Idaho Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The City of Pocatello is petitioning for certiorari in this subproceeding in the Snake River General Stream Adjudication.

Here is the Idaho Supreme Court decision.

city-of-pocatello-cert-petition

Snake River Basin Adjudication Subproceeding (Idaho S. Ct.)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the opinion, City of Pocatello v. Idaho et al.:

The City of Pocatello filed a claim in the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA), asserting it had been granted a federal water right under an 1888 Congressional act. A special master in the SRBA determined that no such right existed. The district court affirmed on appeal, as does this Court.

Here is an audio file of the oral argument.