Opinion here: Osage Nation v. Kemp, 09-5050 (March 5, 2010)
Briefs here.
Opinion here: Osage Nation v. Kemp, 09-5050 (March 5, 2010)
Briefs here.
Here: Attea v. Dept. of Taxation Cert Petition.
Questions presented:
1. Whether New York State usurps the United States Congress’ plenary power to regulate commerce with the Indian Tribes under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution by imposing a direct tax and onerous record keeping burdens directly on a Federally Licensed Indian Trader.
2. Whether, if Indian Trader income is state taxable, New York State violates a nonresident’s Due Process rights and the Commerce Clause by taxing an indiscriminate amount of a nonresident’s income solely because there is insufficient proof to show the amount of income allocable to out of State sources.
Lower court opinion here.
The court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction by a smoke shop seeking to prevent enforcement of Idaho’s Minor’s Access Act. Here are the materials:
Lil Brown Smoke Shack DCT Order
Lil Brown Smoke Shack Motion for Preliminary Injunction
An excerpt:
Here, Defendants argue that, if the Bracker balancing test applies, the permit requirement is an important state interest outweighing the tribal interests. Specifically, Defendants argue that the permit requirement allows the State of Idaho to control the ability of minors to obtain tobacco by ensuring that the Department of Health and Welfare has a central repository of all businesses marketing tobacco to Idaho residents with a uniform set of data which facilities compliance and monitoring. Defendants contend this interest outweighs the relevant tribal interests identified by Plaintiff, partially because the burden on Plaintiff in submitting annually to a no-charge permit is non existent. However, Defendants do not address Plaintiff’s contention that the right to make employment decisions, business decisions, and the right to exclude persons from the reservation are longstanding tribal interests that, although they do not singularly justify non compliance with the MAA, must be balanced in the Bracker test particularly with respect to the other contested provisions of the MAA. The Court agrees that the Bracker test should be applied.
The Court finds that, even though the Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the permit requirement is low, the likelihood of success with respect to the other provisions of the MAA is more plausible. However, Plaintiff has failed to clearly demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on these claims. Thus, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Plaintiff’s tribal sovereignty challenges will be denied.
This is a few months old. No word on an appeal. Here are the materials:
DCT Order in Fond du Lac Band v Einess
Fond du Lac First Motion for Summary Judgment
Fond du Lac Amended Motion for Summary J
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.
Here is the opinion in Yakama Indian Nation v. Gregoire (E.D. Wash.): Yakama DCT Order on X-Motions for Summary J
Here are the motions:
Here are those briefs:
Thurston County Motion for Summary J
Prior materials on this important case are here.
Scott Taylor has posted “Taxation in Indian Country after Carcieri v. Salazar,” forthcoming in the William Mitchell Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
Federally recognized Indian tribes are governments within our federal legal system. Tribes have aboriginal sovereignty that provides them with inherent governmental powers, such as the power to tax. Tribal sovereignty also protects tribes from state interference, such as state taxation of tribal lands. Both the exercise of tribal governmental powers and the tribal immunity from state interference have a territorial component. This makes the status of Indian lands a critical inquiry into tribal/state relations. Because of the importance of land status in federal Indian law, especially in matters involving taxation, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Carcieri v. Salazar deserves special attention. In the Carcieri case, the Court held that the Secretary of the Interior did not have the statutory authority to place lands into trust on behalf of Indian tribes that were recognized after the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This article explores taxation in Indian Country after Carcier
As this article reports, the 29 Palms Band sued the State of California over gaming-related income on behalf of its off-reservation members. The court granted an earlier motion to dismiss, but allowed the Band leave to file an amended complaint on whether IGRA preempts state taxation.
Here are the materials so far:
Sept DCT Order Granting California Motion to Dismiss
Here:
Lower court materials are here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.