From SCOTUSblog:

Title: Osage Nation v. Irby
Docket: 10-537
Issue(s): (1) Whether, in determining whether Congress “disestablished an Indian reservation,” pursuant to Solem v. Bartlett (1984), courts are limited to the statutory text, legislative history, and views of the Executive Branch or can instead also consider other external indicia; and (2) whether the lower court properly ruled a Native American tribe’s reservation had been “disestablished.”

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (10th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Here are the early materials in Osage Nation v. Irby:

Osage cert petition

No. 10-__ Appendix Proof 10-21-10

Questions Presented:

In Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984), this Court held that “only Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries,” and Congress’s intent to do so must be “explicit[]” and “unequivocal,” id. at 470-471.

The Questions Presented are:
I. Whether, in determining whether Congress disestablished an Indian reservation, express statutory text, unequivocal legislative history, and the expert view of the Executive Branch are controlling, as the Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have ruled, or whether, instead, other indicia external to the statutory text and federal government’s view, such as modern demographics, can override unambiguous statutory text, as the Tenth Circuit and Seventh Circuit have held.

II. Whether the court properly ruled that the Osage Nation’s reservation has been disestablished in the absence of unambiguous statutory direction and without obtaining or considering the position of the United States government.

Lower court materials here, here, and here.