Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Leeds, Miller, Washburn, and Beetso on Castro-Huerta

May 9, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Stacy Leeds, Robert J. Miller, Kevin K. Washburn, and Derrick Beetso have posted “Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta — Rebalancing Federal-State-Tribal Power,” previously published in the Journal of Appellate Process and Practice, on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The Supreme Court’s unexpected decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta in 2022 overturned established precedent and scrambled long-settled expectations about the division of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country. In this panel discussion shortly after the decision was issued, the authors provided a “hot take” on the Castro-Huerta decision and discussed its impact on criminal justice in Indian country and on federal Indian law more broadly.

We previously posted this symposium issue here.

Indian Law Issue of the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

March 29, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process – Winter 2023 Issue Now Available

The Winter 2023 issue of The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process(Volume 22, Issue 1) is now available. This special issue focuses on appellate issues in and around Indian country. It features the following articles:

Tessa L. Dysart—Appellate Issues In and Around Indian Country
Todd R. Matha—An Unexpected Challenge: The Consequence of a Limited Tribal Appellate Caseload
Derrick Beetso, Stacy Leeds, Robert Miller, Kevin Washburn—Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta—Rebalancing Federal–State–Tribal Power
Barbara Ann Atwood—Standing Matters: Brackeen, Article III, and the Lure of the Merits
Adèle Auxier Keim—The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Indian Law: From Individual Advocacy to Collective Action
Victoria Sutton—Appellate Courts: Stop Accepting an “Absurd” First Amendment Analysis for Native Nations’ Sacred Site Destruction
Neoshia R. Roemer—Reading American Indian Law

New Papers about the Solicitor General

August 21, 2009August 21, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

How fortuitous that my paper on the Solicitor General’s strange lack of success defending tribal interests before the Supreme Court becomes available the same day Patricia Millett’s paper on stategies for obtaining amicus help from the Solicitor General’s Office goes up on SCOTUSBlog!?!

Here’s the write-up on Ms. Millett’s paper from SCOTUSBlog:

Patricia Millett recently published this article (PDF download) in the Tenth Anniversary edition of the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process (Vol. 10, No. 1; Spring 2009). It addresses the Supreme Court’s unique practice — not mentioned in the Court’s rules — of calling for the views of the Solicitor General at the certiorari stage, and the process of obtaining amicus support from the Solicitor General in such cases, as well as in cases in which review has been granted.

And my abstract (paper download here):

This short paper prepared for the 2009 Federal Bar Association’s Annual Meeting offers preliminary results of a study of the OSG in the Supreme Court from the 1998 through the 2008 Terms. I study the OSG’s success rates before the Court in every stage of litigation, from the certiorari process, the Court’s calls for the views of the Solicitor General, and on the merits of the cases that reach final decision after oral argument.

The paper begins with the preliminary data on the OSG’s success rate in Indian law cases. The data demonstrates that the OSG retains its success rate in both the certiorari process and on the merits when the United States is in opposition to tribal interests. But when the OSG sits as a party alongside tribal interests, and especially when the OSG acts as an amicus siding with tribal interests, the OSG’s success rate drops dramatically.

Like this:

Like this:

Like this: