The Supreme Court will decide whether or not to grant cert in two Indian law-related cases, Benally v. United States (No. 09-5429), and Pyke v. Cuomo (No. 09-242). Benally may have a reasonable chance of being granted (though SCOTUSBlog does not list it as a petition to watch), if for no other reason that some amici filed briefs in support of the petition.
Pyke v. Cuomo
Pyke v. Cuomo Cert Petition
Second Circuit opinion here.
Questions presented:
1. Whether a summary judgment motion which turns on the adequacy of plaintiffs’ evidence of intentional discrimination must be denied where a “plausible” inference of invidious intent can be drawn from all of the evidence, circumstantial and direct, taken as a whole?
2. Whether this Court should resolve a conflict among the circuits on the issue of what standards to apply in considering the strength of summary judgment evidence in cases of alleged intentional discrimination?
3. Whether Congress’s enactment of 25 U.S.C. §232 obviated any distinctions based on geography or sovereignty regarding New York’s duty to provide police protection to Native Americans residents of reservations within the State?
Pyke v. Cuomo — Dismissal of Claims against State re: Mohawk Unrest
Here is the short, per curiam opinion in Pyke v. Cuomo — Pyke v Cuomo
An excerpt:
This case arises from widespread, violent unrest on a Mohawk Indian reservation in New York in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At issue is the response of certain New York officials to that crisis. Plaintiffs, as representatives of a class, argue that Defendants-all of whom are government officials with some responsibility for the policing of Indian lands-violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause through their inadequate and at times harmful response to the unrest on the reservation. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ actions contributed to millions of dollars in property damage and the deaths of two young Mohawks.
***
The violence on the Mohawk reservation was an indisputable tragedy. But Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendants’ attempts to avert it, however unsuccessful they might have been, were a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
Turtle Talk 