The Supreme Court released its order list for the week, and all the Navajo Nation/Peabody Coal claims were denied. The Oneida land claim has not yet been granted or denied. It is possible the case may be relisted for another conference, though that’s not entirely clear. The order is here.
Update: The Court has relisted the petitions for the October 7 conference.
Here is today’s order list. Next week, the Court will issue the order list of denials.
Presumably, that means United States v. New York, Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County, EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co., Navajo Nation v. EEOC, and Peabody Western Coal Co. v. EEOC have all been denied, although that won’t be confirmed until later.
Here:
Navajo Opposition to EEOC Conditional Cert Petition
Peabody Coal Opposition to EEOC Conditional Cert Petition
The EEOC’s conditional petition is here.
The original cert petitions from Navajo and Peabody are here.
Here is the federal brief:
Cert petitions are here. CA9 opinion post is here.
SCOTUSblog has named EEOC v. Peabody Coal Co. its petition of the day:
Title: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peabody Western Coal Company
Docket: 10-1080
Issue(s): Whether the Secretary of the Interior is a “required party,” within the meaning of Rule 19(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to an action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a private employer, where the challenged conduct was undertaken pursuant to a federally approved mining lease between the employer and an Indian Tribe, but no federal agency is a party to the lease.Certiorari stage documents:
I think this petition is a conditional cross-petition though, which isn’t up for serious consideration unless the underlying petition is granted. There are actually two — one by Peabody Coal and one by Navajo. The conditional cross-petition notes that the government will separately respond to the cert petitions.
Here: EEOC Conditional Cross-Petition
The question presented:
Whether the Secretary of the Interior is a “required party,” within the meaning of Rule 19(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to an action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a private employer, where the challenged conduct was undertaken pursuant to a federally approved mining lease between the employer and an Indian Tribe, but no federal agency is a party to the lease.
The cert petitions filed by Peabody Coal and the Navajo Nation are here.
Here is the Peabody Coal petition: Peabody Coal Cert Petition.
The question presented:
Where the EEOC contends that conduct required by a tribal coal mining lease provision mandated by the Secretary of the Interior violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which statute expressly bars the EEOC from suing the Secretary to enforce Title VII, does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 permit the coal mining lessee or the tribal lessor to implead the Secretary as a third-party defendant?
And here is the Navajo cert petition: Navajo Nation Cert Petition
The questions presented:
1. May the sovereign immunity of the United States and of a federally recognized Indian tribe, preserved in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be abrogated by application of Rules 14 and 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
2. May a court use Rule 14 to permit or require a party to implead the Secretary of the Interior in a case where the applicable statute does not confer a right of contribution?
Lower court materials here.
And here is Dr. Ray Austin’s fine history of the tribal law in question. And my paper from 7 years ago on Rule 19 and Indian tribes. [Read my paper and you’ll know how this is going to turn out.]
Turtle Talk 