Here:

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Here is the unpublished opinion in State of Wisconsin v. House: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).
Here is the opinion in Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):
Briefs here.
Here are the updated materials in Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):
292 CA8 Order Dismissing Appeal
305 County Sheriff Motion to Dismiss
Prior post here.
It’s ‘cuz of PL280 (and, yeah, I know you’re out there Red Lakers, so chill). Here is the opinion in Martin v. State of Minnesota:
Here is the unpublished opinion in State v. Randall:
Here are the materials in Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):
225 Tribe Motion for Summary Judgment
241 County Motion for Summary Judgment
250 State of Minnesota Amicus Brief
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):
225 Tribe Motion for Summary Judgment
241 County Motion for Summary Judgment
250 State of Minnesota Amicus Brief
Prior post here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.