Here.
Turns Out the Supreme Court Isn’t All that Activist….
Here.
Roberts Court
SCT Oral Argument Study: Who Gets the Most Questions, Loses?
Chief Justice Roberts once said his goal as an oral advocate was to get the Court to ask his side the fewest questions. Presumably, the more questions a side gets from the Justices is an indicator of the weakness of that side’s position. Does that dictum play out in the Roberts Court’s Indian law cases? Note that tribal interests have yet to prevail in the Roberts Court.
The answer appears to be yes.; the one exception being United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, in which the questions were evenly distributed. The questions were even in last week’s Ramah argument as well, suggesting a close case.
The average number of questions asked of the tribal interests — 399 questions/7 arguments = 57 questions
The average number of questions asked of advocates opposing tribal interests — 288/7 = 41 questions
Here is the list: Continue reading
Fair Housing Act Advocates Settle Case to Avoid Roberts Court Review
Here is the article.
As one commentator noted to us, the author must not have heard of Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation, last Term.
WaPo: Roberts Court Lacking in “Practical Wisdom”
From How Appealing:
“How is the Roberts Court unusual? A law professor counts the ways.” Robert Barnes will have this article Monday in The Washington Post. A related graphic can be accessed here.
Thanks also to E.E.
Early Preview of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Term
Heading into the sixth year of the Roberts Court, we note first that the last Term (2009) was the second Roberts Court Term that did not feature a single Indian law case. In the first five years of the Court, there have been only 5 Indian law decisions — all losses for Indian Country.
However, the upcoming Term features one case already, and several others that are likely to be granted. Note the general trends in Indian law cases in the Supreme Court petition stage: (1) the United States’ petitions are granted about 2/3 of the time, or more; (2) petitions by states and their subdivisions are granted about 1/3 of the time; (3) petitions by tribes are almost never granted. And even the OSG’s influence wanes when supporting tribal interests.
1. United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation (09-846)
Question presented:
Under 28 U.S.C. 1500, the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) does not have jurisdiction over “any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff * * * has * * * any suit or process against the United States” or its agents “pending in any other court.” The question presented is: Whether 28 U.S.C. 1500 deprives the CFC of jurisdiction over a claim seeking monetary relief for the government’s alleged violation of fiduciary obligations if the plaintiff has another suit pending in federal district court based on substantially the same operative facts, especially when the plaintiff seeks monetary relief or other overlapping relief in the two suits.
As we’ve noted before, this is a case in which Justice Kagan will have to sit out, due to her participation as Solicitor General. For the T.O.N., it might be a good thing, in that the respondents now only need four votes to prevail.
2. Hogan v. Kaltag Tribal Council (09-960)
Question presented:
Whether, for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., a tribal court has
concurrent jurisdiction with state courts to initiate and adjudicate a child-custody proceeding about an Indian child, when the child and her biological mother are tribal members and the nonmember biological father does not object to tribal-court jurisdiction, and when the child is not domiciled or residing within a reservation.
NYTs: Roberts Court Most Conservative Court Since 1953
Here.
FBA Annual Meeting Agenda — Indian Law Highlights
Here is the agenda for the FBA’s Annual Meeting in Oklahoma City (website). Indian Law is prominently featured:
Thursday, Sept. 10
9:30–10:30 a.m. Session 1A: Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country
Speakers: LAWRENCE BACA; ROBERT DON GIFFORD; ARVO MIKKANEN
10:45–11:45 a.m. Session 2A: The Cherokee Freedmen
Speakers: HON. VICKI MILES-LAGRANGE, Moderator; CHARLES J. OGLETREE JR.; PRINCIPAL CHIEF CHADWICK “CORNTASSEL” SMITH
1:45–2:45 p.m.Session 3A: Issues and Ethics for Lawyers Working with Corporate and Tribal General Counsel
Speakers: SUSANNA M. GATTONI, Moderator; PAIGE S. BASS; MATTHEW L.M. FLETCHER; DEANNA HARTLEY-KELSO; HENRY J. HOOD; KERI C. PRINCE; LYNDON C. TAYLOR; GLORIA VALENCIA-WEBER
3:00–4:00 p.m. Session 4A: Issues and Ethics for Lawyers Working with Corporate and Tribal General Counsel (Continued) (see speakers above)
4:15–5:15 p.m.Session 5A: Delivery of Veterans Services in Indian Country
Speakers: JENNIFER WEDDLE, Moderator; PAUL HUTTER; DOUG ROSINSKI; CAROL WILD SCOTT
Friday, Sept. 11
9:45–10:45 a.m.Session 6A: The Roberts Court on Indian Law
Speakers: MATTHEW L.M. FLETCHER (paper here); JOHN DOSSETT; HON. D. MICHAEL McBRIDE III
Please be advised that the Federal Bar Association selected Walter Echo-Hawk for this award, one of its highest honors. The FBA will honor him on the evening of Sept. 12, 2009 in Oklahoma City at the installation banquet. Lawrence Baca will assume the Presidency of the FBA at this dinner as well.
Indian Law Conference at Harvard Law School on April 6, 2009
Tribal Justice: The Supreme Court and the Future of Federal Indian Law (Tribal Justice Conference Poster)
Monday, April 6, 2009
Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall, Harvard Law School
The Supreme Court’s treatment of American Indians has long been viewed as uniquely reflective of the rise and fall of our shared democratic faith. A flurry of recent cases has signaled to Native nations a disturbing paradigm shift – that of a judiciary now openly hostile to tribal interests. This timely conference brings together leading scholars and practitioners for a frank discussion regarding the impact the Roberts Court is having on Indian Country.
Agenda below the fold….
Dean Chemerinsky on the Roberts Court
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky has posted “The Roberts Court at Age Three” on SSRN, forthcoming in the Wayne Law Review. Here is the abstract:
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court completed the third term of the John Roberts era. This article develops four themes concerning where the Supreme Court is right now and where it is likely to be going. First, so far, the Roberts Court has been characterized by its dwindling docket. Second, although it is called the Roberts Court out of tradition and deference to the Chief, in actuality it is the Anthony Kennedy Court. When it matters most, Kennedy is virtually always the deciding vote in 5-4 decisions. Third, this is the most conservative Court since the mid-1930s and is a Court that generally favors the government over claims of individual rights and business interests over those of employees and consumers. Fourth, the 2008 election is likely to determine whether the Court becomes more conservative or stays ideologically the same. It is unlikely that the Court will become more liberal during the next presidency or even the next five to ten years.
Turtle Talk 