Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Cert Petition in Oklahoma Gaming Machines Tax Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Rogers County Board of Tax Roll Corrections v. Video Gaming Technologies, Inc.:

20200514142407520_Petition for Writ of Certiorari

20200514142428474_Appendix for Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Question presented:

Whether a generally applicable state ad valorem tax, as assessed against personal property owned by a non-Indian, out-of-state corporate entity and leased to a tribe for use in its casino operations, is preempted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Court’s “particularized inquiry” balancing test, see White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), where the tax does not infringe on any federal regulatory purpose contained in the IGRA, the tax does not interfere with any tribal sovereignty interests, and the tax supports relevant and important government interests, such as law enforcement, schools and health services.

Lower court decision here.

UPDATE:

Tulsa County Assessor Amicus Brief

Cert Opp Brief

SCOTUSBlog Preview of McGirt Argument with Bob Anderson

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

McGirt background materials here.

Rebecca Nagle Repudiating Oklahoma’s Factual Claims in McGirt/Murphy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Oklahoma’s Suspect Argument in Front of the Supreme Court — The state claims that affirming a reservation in eastern Oklahoma could lead to thousands of state criminal convictions being thrown out. But that argument doesn’t seem to be based on facts” from the Atlantic.

The briefs are here.

Bloomberg News Profile of McGirt Argument

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Gorsuch Gets Moment as Decider in Case Evoking Trail of Tears.”

The briefs are here.

McGirt v. Oklahoma SCT Argument Set for April 21

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the April calendar.

Here are the background materials on the case.

McGirt v. Oklahoma Background Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Oral Argument Transcript:

Oral Argument Transcript

Merits Briefs:

Petitioner’s Brief

Respondent’s Brief

Petitioner’s Reply

2020 03 20 McGirt Joint Motion for Divided Argument and Enlargement of Time

Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioner:

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief Brad Henry et al

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief Historians Legal Scholars Cherokee Nation

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief National Ass’n Criminal Defense Lawyers

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center et al

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief NCAI

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief of Muscogee Creek Nation

18-9526tsacFormerUnitedStatesAttorneys

Amicus Briefs in Support of Respondent:

2020 03 20 Amicus Brief of United States

2020 03 20 Environmenal Fderation of Oklahoma, et al, Amicus Brief

2020 03 20 Int’l Municipal Lawers and Nat’l Sheriffs’ Assn Amicus Br

2020 03 20 States’ Amicus Br

2020 03 20 Tulsa Merits Amicus Brief

Oklahoma District Attorneys Amicus Brief

Cert Stage Materials:

mcgirt-cert-petition.pdf

appendix.pdf

oklahoma-brief-in-opposition.pdf

Guardianship Case out of Nebraska [ICWA]

Kate Fort

Here.

You have to love a court that starts the opinion so clearly:

The federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Nebraska Indian Child Welfare Act (NICWA) provide specific procedures and requirements that apply in certain proceedings involving the custody and adoption of and termination of parental rights to Native American children. This case requires us to decide whether those procedures and requirements apply in a case in which a maternal grandmother sought to establish a guardianship for an Indian child over the objection of her daughter, the child’s mother. After interpreting the relevant statutory language, we conclude that the guardianship proceeding at issue was governed by ICWA and NICWA. In addition, we find that the grandmother did not make the showing required by ICWA and NICWA. We therefore reverse the order of the county court establishing the guardianship and remand the cause with directions to vacate the guardianship, dismiss the petition, and return custody to the child’s mother.

Citizen Potawatomi Nation and Muscogee (Creek) Nation Intervene in Oklahoma Gaming Compact Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the updated materials in Cherokee Nation v. Stitt (W.D. Okla.):

21 Citizen Potawatomi Nation Motion to Intervene

21-1 Complaint in Intervention

23 Muscogee (Creek) Nation Motion to Intervene

23-1 Complaint in Intervention

28 DCT Order Granting Motions to Intervene

Prior posts here.

Petitioner’s Brief in McGirt v. Oklahoma

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Petitioner’s Brief

New Fletcher Paper, “Textualism’s Gaze”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Available on SSRN, here.

Here is the abstract:

In recent years, perhaps because of the influence of Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court appears to place greater emphasis on texts than ever before. “We’re all textualists now,” Justice Kagan declared in 2015. But it is one thing to say a court will prioritize the text. It is another thing to choose which text is to be prioritized.

Follow the textualism of constitutional interpretation and one sees judges prioritize the public understanding of the privileged white men in power at the time of the framing of the constitutional text. Follow the textualism of federal statutory interpretation and one sees judges prioritize the text exclusively, and if the judges engage with the legislative history of the statute they will engage with the public understanding of the legislators who enacted the law, again, largely privileged white men. The victory of textualism is not necessarily in the outcomes, but in significantly narrowing the scope of evidence available to interpret the text, in some cases to almost nothing but the bare words of the statute. Women, persons of color, and other marginalized persons and entities are almost never relevant to the textualist’s gaze.

The narrow focus of the textualist’s gaze also warps how Indian law matters are decided. The judiciary rarely considers how the governments and people most affected by the text — Indian tribes and individual Indians — understand the meaning of the text. The judiciary, whether it intends to or not, considers Indians and tribes as extraneous to the interpretive process.