1. Should this Court reconsider Chevron?
2. Does the National Labor Relations Act apply to Indian tribes?
3. Does the employee-to-employee solicitation rule in Republic Aviation empower employees to solicit customers in business “guest areas” like restrooms and restaurants?
Here is the opinion in Casino Pauma v. NLRB. From the court’s syllabus:
The panel granted the National Labor Relations Board’s petition for enforcement of its order; denied Casino Pauma’s petition for review; and upheld the Board’s conclusions that it may apply the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) to the relationship between employees working in commercial gaming establishments on tribal lands and the tribal governments that own and manage the establishments, and that Casino Pauma committed unfair labor practices in violation of the NLRA by trying to stop union literature distribution.
Here they are for the LRB v. NLRB petition:
Here they are for Soaring Eagle v. NLRB:
All the briefs are available here at the background materials page for these two cases.
Here are the materials relevant to Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government v. NLRB.
Supreme Court cert stage briefs
Sixth Circuit En Banc Stage Continue reading
Here is the USET brief in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. NLRB:
This one is substantially the same as USET’s brief in the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government v. NLRB case.
For more than sixty years, the National Labor Relations Board correctly declined to exercise jurisdiction over tribal operations on tribal lands. But in recent years, the Board has belatedly asserted the extraordinary power to regulate the on-reservation activities of sovereign Indian tribes, precipitating a three-way circuit split in the process. Nothing in the text of the National Labor Relations Act changed in that interval; it contains no language granting the Board authority over Indian tribes. Nor has the language of various Indian treaties, like those between the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and the United States, changed; they continue to recognize the Tribe’s authority to exclude non-members. And despite the Board’s complete lack of expertise in Indian law, the Board now dictates that some tribal operations are subject to the NLRA and others are not based on its evaluation of the centrality of certain functions to tribal sovereignty and subtle differences in treaty language.
This case presents two questions, both of which have divided the courts of appeals:
(1) Does the National Labor Relations Act abrogate the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes and thus apply to tribal operations on Indian lands?
(2) Does the National Labor Relations Act abrogate the treaty-protected rights of Indian tribes to make their own laws and establish the rules under which they permit outsiders to enter Indian lands?
Lower court materials here.