Rhode Island Supreme Court

Rhode Island Supreme Court Rejects Narragansett’s Constitutional Challenge to 2011 Casino Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State.

An excerpt:

The plaintiff, the Narragansett Indian Tribe (Tribe), appeals from the entry of partial summary judgment in the Superior Court in favor of the
defendant, the State of Rhode Island (state), and the intervenor defendant, UTGR, Inc. d/b/a
Twin River (UTGR), finding that the 2011 Casino Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 61.2 of title 42
(Casino Act or the act) is not facially unconstitutional. For the reasons set forth in this opinion,
we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. 

News coverage here. 

R.I. SCT Holds Narragansett Tribe Has Standing to Challenge 2011 Casino Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State of Rhode Island.

An excerpt:

The defendant, the State of Rhode Island (State), appeals from the entry of partial summary judgment in the Superior Court for the plaintiff, the Narragansett Indian Tribe (Tribe), finding that the plaintiff had standing to pursue a constitutional challenge to the 2011 Casino Act, G.L. 1956 § 42-61.2-2.1, as enacted by P.L. 2011, ch. 151, art. 25, § 2.1 This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on December 4, 2013, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After carefully considering the written and oral submissions of the parties, we are satisfied that this appeal may be resolved without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

Rhode Island Supreme Court Affirms Conviction of (Presumably) Tribal Member in Narragansett Smoke Shop Raid

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in State v. Brown. smoke shop ceremonysmoke shop raidsmokeshop_247

Rhode Island Supreme Court Decides ICWA Expert Witness Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In re Tamika R. An excerpt:

The respondent, Jackie Robinson, appeals from a Family Court decree finding his daughter Tameka to be dependent and committing her to the care, custody, and control of the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) with discretion as to placement. He argues that DCYF failed to present expert testimony in compliance with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Mr. Robinson further argues that the trial justice’s finding of dependency was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Finally, he submits that the trial justice’s “prosecutorial manner of questioning” deprived him of a fair and impartial trial. After examining the written and oral submissions of the parties, we are of the opinion that the appeal may be resolved without further briefing or argument. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we vacate the decree of the Family Court.

Rhode Island S. Ct. Decision in Narragansett Smoke Shop Case – Gov. Carcieri Doesn’t Have to Testify

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Rhode Island Supreme Court quashed a trial court order compelling Gov. Carcieri to testify in court on the issue of whether state police used excessive force in shutting down the Narragansett smoke shop and arresting many members of the tribe, injuring several people in the process.

Here is the decision.

“Work[ing] Over” Appellate Litigators: The Rhode Island Supreme Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Providence Journal (H/T Indianz):

“I’d rather eat peas, go to a dentist, and listen to Britney Spears sing than be a lawyer appearing before the state Supreme Court.

“These judges are tough. In questions and sideline commentary during oral arguments, they’re abrasive with all parties. At yesterday’s hearing on whether Governor Carcieri must testify in the coming Superior Court trial of Narragansett Indians arrested in the 2003 smoke shop raid, the justices first pounced on his lawyer, Marc DeSisto, and on Special Assistant Attorney General Pamela Chin, who was on the same side.

“Then they pounced as aggressively, if not more, on William Devereaux, lawyer for the Narragansetts. Then, when DeSisto rose for rebuttal, Chief Justice Frank Williams greeted him by chirping, “We’ll work you over, too.”