Here:
Cert petition and link to lower court materials here.
liquor licensing
State of Nebraska v. Parker Cert Petition
Here:
State of Nebraska v Parker cert petition
Questions presented:
In Solem v. Bartlett, the Court articulated a three-part analysis designed to evaluate whether a surplus land act may have resulted in a diminishment of a federal Indian reservation. See 465 U.S. 463, 470-72 (1984). The Court found that the “statutory language used to open the Indian lands,” “events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act,” and “events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act” are all relevant to determining whether diminishment has occurred.
The questions presented by the petition are:1. Whether ambiguous evidence concerning the first two Solem factors necessarily forecloses any possibility that diminishment could be found on a de facto basis.
2. Whether the original boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation were diminished following passage of the Act of August 7, 1882.
Lower court materials here.
Eighth Circuit Rules Omaha Indian Reservation Not Diminished
Here is the opinion. An excerpt:
Based upon the record evidence, the district court in this matter has done just that–accurately discerned the contemporaneous intent and understanding of the 1882 Act. The court carefully reviewed the relevant legislative history, contemporary historical context, subsequent congressional and administrative references to the reservation, and demographic trends, and did so in such a fashion that any additional analysis would only be unnecessary surplus. Ever mindful to “resolve any ambiguities in favor of the Indians,” there is nothing in this case to overcome the “presumption in favor of the continued existence” of the Omaha Indian Reservation. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. at 344 (quotation omitted); Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 985, 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
Eighth Circuit Briefs in Smith v. Parker — Formerly a Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter, Now a Reservation Boundaries Matter
Here:
Lower court materials and links to prior iterations of this case here.
Opening Eighth Circuit Brief in Smith v. Parker — Formerly a Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter, Now a Reservation Boundaries Matter
Federal Court Holds Omaha Reservation Not Diminished in Tribal Liquor Jurisdiction Matter
Here are the new materials in Smith v. Parker (D. Neb.):
136 Village of Pender Response
Cross-motions for summary judgment and briefs are here. Prior posts here, here, and here.
Update in Omaha Tribal Liquor Jurisdiction Case
The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment:
The United States and the State of Nebraska have each filed briefs on the question of whether the Omaha Tribe’s 1854 reservation has been diminished/disestablished, with the federal government supporting the tribe and the state opposing:
Nebraska Intervenes in Tribal Liquor Jurisdiction Case Involving Pender, NE Liquor Sellers
Here are the materials in Smith v. Parker (D. Neb.):
DCT Order Granting Nebraska Motion to Intervene
Opposition to Motion to Intervene
Nebraska Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
Prior posts on this very interesting case are here and here.
Omaha Tribal Court Opinion Holding Tribe Has Authority to Tax Liquor Retailers on 1854 Reservation
Here is the opinion:
Village of Pender v Morris — Omaha Tribal Court
The District of Nebraska previously ordered exhaustion of tribal remedies in this matter, materials here.
And here is the briefing schedule:
News coverage here.
Village of Pender v. Parker — tribal court exhaustion case
Recently, a federal judge in Nebraska stayed a federal claim that the Omaha tribe has no authority to require on-reservation, non-Indian liquor vendors to obtain a tribal license to sell liquor.
The judge noted that this appears to be a question of first impression (“While the briefing has been excellent, neither side has given me a case that is squarely on point regarding whether exhaustion is required in these circumstances. As a result, I must read the ‘tea leaves.'”), but correctly stayed the case until the tribal court had a chance to opine on the jurisdiction questions.
The 2nd amended complaint is here: Complaint
The tribal motion to dismiss is here: Motion to Dismiss
The opposition is here: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
The reply is here: Reply Brief
The court’s stay order and opinion is here: DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
Turtle Talk 