Ramah is April 18, and Patchak is April 24.
Coverage here.
Two Indian Law SCT Arguments Scheduled for April
Ramah is April 18, and Patchak is April 24.
Coverage here.
Salazar v. Patchak
Q&A with Fletcher on Patchak
Here.
Grand Rapids Press Coverage of Gun Lake Supreme Court Case
Here. An excerpt:
WAYLAND TOWNSHIP — The Supreme Court will decide next year whether the federal government properly took land into trust for the Gun Lake Tribe to build a casino, in a case that experts say reaches far beyond the borders of Allegan County.
On Monday, the court agreed to hearformer Wayland Township trustee David Patchak’s reinstated lawsuit against the Gun Lake Band of Pottawatomi and the federal Interior Department, a case which could force the Gun Lake Casino to shut its doors.
The casino, which employs about 900 people, opened in February and has since paid out $10.4 million in state and local revenue sharing while raking in about $104 million in net profits on electronic games after payouts in less than a year of operation.
“This is an incredibly high-stakes case,” said Matthew Fletcher, a law professor at Michigan State University who specializes in Indian gaming law. “This casino is generating a lot of revenue — a lot more than they thought they would.”
But the Supreme Court, which accepts only about 3 to 4 percent of cases for which they’re petitioned each year, would not be scheduling arguments if the lawsuit were simply about jobs, profits and revenue sharing for municipalities, although that helps, said Fletcher.
Rather, the Roberts Court justices are likely hoping to clear-up a gray-area in the law that governs decisions by the Department of Interior about taking land in trust on behalf of Indian tribes; a wrinkle that bodes well for the tribe and the government, he said.
The Supreme Court typically reverses about 70 to 75 percent of cases they hear, Fletcher said. “They usually agree to hear a case when they think a lower court is wrong.”
Quick Commentary on SCOTUS, Patchak, and Corboy
The Supreme Court granted cert in an Indian law case where the petition was filed in favor of tribal interests. This is, of course, the Patchak case involving the Department of Interior’s decision to take land into trust for gaming purposes on behalf of the Gun Lake Band. The last time the Court granted a petition filed on behalf of tribal interests was Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt, a case decided in 2005. The Court might also grant cert this Term in Ramah Navajo v. Salazar. Key to these successful cert petitions is the participation of the United States as supportive of the granting of the petition (if not the merits). In fact, every cert petition granted on behalf of tribal interests in recent memory has the support of the federal government, the last one (I believe) being Mississippi Band Choctaw v. Holyfield. Only Justice Scalia remains from that Court.
Key point: A cert petition on behalf of tribal interests has almost no chance of being granted by the Roberts Court unless the United States favors of the petition. Even then, as the Oneida and Cayuga land claims petitions demonstrates, it is a bit of a crap shoot.
Corboy v. Louie is more representative of where the Supreme Court is in relation to Indian law (though I suppose this isn’t an Indian law case, precisely). There’s nothing certworthy in this case whatsover (no split, nothing of national importance, a case brought by a private tax protester), but the Court is thinking carefully about this case perhaps because Indian law-type legal doctrines are outside of what Dean Getches called the “mainstream” of constitutional law, and should be reeled in. I have no doubt the OSG will recommend a denial because there simply is nothing worthy of Supreme Court review, but the fact this isn’t already a denied petition is telling.
Key point: A cert petition opposing tribal interests (regardless of its merit) receives more attention from the Supreme Court than a petition favoring tribal interests. End of story.
Interior Cert Stage Reply Brief in Patchak
Here.
Patchak Cert Opposition Brief
ICT Article on Local Support for Gun Lake Casino
Here is the article (h/t Pechanga). And an excerpt:
More than 15 entities, including Wayland Township, Allegan County, the Allegan Area Education Service Agency, the cities of Wayland and Allegan, the Barry County Chamber of Commerce, the Barry County Economic Development Alliance, the Gun Lake Business Association, and the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of Michigan have filed a collective amici curiae – friend of the court – brief in the petition for certiorari filed with the high court by the Interior Department and the Match-E-Nash-E-Wish Band of Pottawatomi (the Gun Lake Tribe) Indians versus David Patchak. The high court has been asked to review a ruling issued by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last January that said Patchak, a former trustee in Wayland County, Michigan, has standing to bring a lawsuit against the Interior Department for taking into trust 147 acres in Bradley, Michigan, near Grand Rapids where the tribe operates its casino. The casino, which opened in February, created 900 new jobs and has brought a new wave of prosperity to local hotels, restaurants, vendors and other businesses in an area that had a reported 11.9 percent unemployment rate.
“Collectively, the amici curiae represent numerous individuals and businesses that support and have been positively affected by the Band’s economic development activities on the trust land. They submit this brief to explain the substantial local benefits that arise from the cooperative and mutually reinforcing economic development efforts of the Band, the regional governments, and local businesses,” the amici wrote. “The amici curiae urge this Court to grant the petitions for certiorari to resolve the debilitating uncertainty and economic instability created by the court of appeals’ decision, which threatens to stifle economic development in a state and region that has endured a disproportionate amount of economic suffering in recent years.”
NCAI Cert Stage Amicus Brief in Patchak Case
Here:
Local Units of Government and Business Groups File Amicus in Favor of Cert Petition in Gun Lake/Salazar v. Patchak
Here:
See, I wasn’t joking when I said this here:
“Wayland and its surrounding townships long have hoped for more industry and economic growth – I know, I grew up there. So it’s just one guy for all we know who doesn’t want that. He’s pretty firmly in a tiny minority,” Fletcher said.
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak SCOTUSblog Petition of the Day
SCOTUSblog’s Petition of the Day:
The petitions of the day are:
Title: Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak
Docket: 11-246
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Quiet Title Act and its reservation of the United States’ sovereign immunity in suits involving “trust or restricted Indian lands” apply to all suits concerning land in which the United States “claims an interest,” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), or whether they apply only when the plaintiff claims title to the land; and (2) whether prudential standing to sue under federal law can be based on either (i) the plaintiff’s ability to “police” an agency’s compliance with the law or (ii) interests protected by a different federal statute than the one on which suit is based.
Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (D.C. Cir.)
Petition for certiorariTitle: Salazar v. Patchak
Docket: 11-247
Issue(s): (1) Whether 5 U.S.C. § 702 waives the sovereign immunity of the United States from a suit challenging its title to lands that it holds in trust for an Indian Tribe; and (2) whether a private individual who alleges injuries resulting from the operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust land has prudential standing to challenge the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to take title to that land in trust, on the ground that the decision was not authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act.
Certiorari stage documents:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.