Here are the briefs in Window Rock Unified School District v. Reeves:
Navajo Nation Labor Commission Opening Brief
Navajo Nation Supreme Court Amicus Brief
Navajo Nation Labor Commission Reply Brief
Lower court materials here.
Here are the briefs in Window Rock Unified School District v. Reeves:
Navajo Nation Labor Commission Opening Brief
Navajo Nation Supreme Court Amicus Brief
Navajo Nation Labor Commission Reply Brief
Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition in Alaska v. Jewell:
State of Alaska Petition and Appendix
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly held—in conflict with this Court’s decisions—that the federal reserved water rights doctrine authorizes the unprecedented federal takeover of Alaska’s navigable waters sanctioned by the 1999 Rule.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly proceeded on the premise—which also conflicts with this Court’s decisions—that ANILCA could be interpreted to federalize navigable waters at all given Congress’s silence on the Act’s application to navigable waters.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the unpublished order:
An excerpt:
Because we conclude that the scope of the preliminary injunction only included the 2012 election, this court can no longer provide plaintiffs with the relief requested—requiring defendants to open satellite offices in time for that election. Although plaintiffs’ complaint requested “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief . . . for the 2012 primary election and . . . for all future elections,” plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction included no such language, and the evidence presented to the district court focused almost exclusively on the 2012 election. As that election has passed, there is no longer any relief that this court can provide with respect to that election.
Briefs and other materials here.
Here are the materials in United States v. Greybull:
Here are the briefs:
Wandering Medicine Opening Brief
Oral argument audio here.
Materials on the appellees’ motion to dismiss here.
Here are the new materials:
Zepeda Response to En Banc Petition
From Judge Watford’s now-much-shortened dissent:
I agree with much of the majority’s analysis, particularly its conclusion that whether a tribe has been recognized by the federal government is a question of law. But I disagree with the majority’s ultimate determination that the government failed to present sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could infer that Zepeda has a blood connection to a federally recognized tribe. Under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), a rational jury could certainly infer that the reference in Zepeda’s tribal enrollment certificate to “1/4 Tohono O’Odham” is a reference to the federally recognized Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona.
Panel materials are here.
Materials on affected appeals are here.
Here are the materials:
The attorney fees award, I believe, is discussed here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.