Here is the opinion in Frank’s Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission.
Briefs here.
Ninth Circuit
Teck Metals v. Colville Cert Petition
Here is the petition in Teck Metals Ltd. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (No. 18-1160):
Update:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), and RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016), correctly concluded that holding Teck liable for its discharges in Canada was not an impermissible extraterritorial application of CERCLA.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with this Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), and the Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits, correctly held that a State may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant because the defendant knew its conduct would have in-state effects, where the defendant’s relevant conduct occurred elsewhere.
3. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with the First Circuit and in tension with the opinions of this Court and several other circuits, correctly held that a defendant can be an “arranger” under CERCLA even if the defendant did not arrange for anyone else to dispose of or treat the waste.
Lower court materials here.
Federal Court Holds Individual Members of Tribal Corporate Board Can Be Sued under False Claims Act
Here are the materials in Cain v. Salish Kootenai College (D. Mont.):
UPDATE: 129 Amended DCT Order
King Mountain Tobacco v. US Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the Yakama Treaty must include express exemptive language” to create an exemption from a federal tax or fee.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the federal tobacco excise tax, 26 U.S.C. § 5701-5703, and the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act (“FETRA”), 7 U.S.C. § 518-519, apply to the Yakama Indians even though (1) the Yakama Treaty creates a right to travel in order to protect the Yakama Indians’ ability to trade and (2) these taxes and fees are triggered by the transport of goods – rather than by sale or manufacture.
Lower court materials here. Case tag here.
Update:
Mitchell v. Tulalip Tribes Cert Petition
Here:
UPDATE:
Question presented:
Does sovereign immunity bar the federal courts’ consideration of a declaratory judgment action to determine whether Respondent Tribes can exercise regulatory/taxing authority over real property owned in fee by Petitioners non-Indians, pursuant to allotments that were authorized by the Tribes’ treaty with the United States?
Lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit Rejects Tribe’s Effort to Avoid Possessory Interest Tax (again)
Here is the unpublished opinion in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County. An excerpt:
In Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1971), we held that this very tax is permissible. Plaintiff argues that our cursory preemption analysis there is clearly irreconcilable with White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), and therefore not controlling. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (permitting a three-judge panel to depart from circuit precedent if, but only if, that precedent is clearly irreconcilable with a later Supreme Court or en banc decision). We disagree.
Materials are here.
Ninth Circuit Vacates Stillaguamish Effort to “Engineer” Jurisdiction in an Immunity Defense Case
Here is the opinion in Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. State of Washington.
Materials here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Swinomish v. BNSF
Casino Pauma v. NLRB Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
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?
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.