Here are the materials in Round Valley Indian Tribes v. Kendall (N.D. Cal.):

Prior post here.
Matthew Fletcher and Dr. Hannah Wenger have posted “Issues of Contemporary Health Policy and Law for Two-Spirit, Indigiqueer, Transgender and Gender-Diverse Communities in Indian Country” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
This policy brief asks a hypothetical question in a political environment in which the U.S. federal government and many states disfavor the delivery of gender-affirming medical care (GAMC) to 2S/IQ/TGD persons, even to the point of criminalizing such care. It further assumes that a tribal nation is willing and capable of delivering GAMC. The answer to the hypothetical question depends on many factors, including (1) whether the state law is authorized by an Act of Congress such as Public Law 280, (2) whether the state law is a criminal law or a civil-regulatory law, and (3) whether the patient or health care professional is a tribal citizen, a nonmember Indian person, or a non-Indian person. The answer here also assumes that the relevant state law does affirmatively criminalize the provision of GAMC and, further, that federal law prohibits the use of federal money by tribal nations to provide GAMC.

Here are the briefs in Lake County v. State of Montana:

Here are the briefs in Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Madore:
Other briefs TK.
Lower court materials here.

Here is the complaint in Cordova v. Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office (N.D. Cal.):


Here are the materials in Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):

Here is the unpublished opinion in State of Wisconsin v. House:
Briefs here.

Public Law 280 is the classic example of what SCOTUS would strike down as violating the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment. It is a mandate to states (six of them, including Wisconsin) to assume criminal jurisdiction over Indian country and it’s basically unfounded (more or less like most other aspects of Indian country criminal jurisdiction). I guess since the mandatory PL280 states consent to this federal commandeering of their legislative process, it’s okay? Or since the states retain prosecutorial discretion in individual cases? Like a lot of crap the Supreme Court has been shoving down our collective throats for the last few decades, anti-commandeering law is just stupid with two Os (thank you Knives Out for that one).
You must be logged in to post a comment.