Here is the latest pleading from the counties, seeking a stay from the CA2 on the reservation boundaries question:
Here was our last post, with the counties seeking en banc review of the reservation boundaries issue (the court recently denied the petition).
Three of these cases just today!
Here are the materials in United States v. Wilson:
Wilson DCT Order 2 [motion to reconsider]
We posted about the lower court decision here.
Of the many arguments that the parties have raised, only two warrant extended 11 discussion. The first is the government’s contention that the district court erred in vacating Morrison’s conspiracy conviction on the ground of vagueness. The second is Morrison’s claim that the CCTA was inapplicable to him given New York’s “forbearance policy,” under which the State refrained from collecting taxes on cigarette sales transacted on Native American reservations. According to Morrison, this forbearance policy barred his conviction under the CCTA because that statute provides that, in order for a federal prosecution to lie, the state in which the allegedly contraband cigarettes are found must “require” tax stamps to be placed on cigarettes. We reverse the district court’s order vacating Morrison’s RICO conspiracy conviction and reject all of Morrison’s challenges to his convictions.
Appellant/Government’s Brief
Defendant/Appellee Brief
Government’s Response & Reply Brief
Appellee Reply Brief
We posted the opinion and lower court materials here.
And now the briefs:
Here is the opinion:
It’s the Second Circuit, so there are no briefs (unless someone sends them along). Here are the briefs:
An excerpt:
The Shinnecock Indian Nation and its tribal officials (collectively, the “Shinnecock” or the “Tribe”) appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). After a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from developing a casino on a plot of land known as Westwoods without complying with the laws of New York State and the Town of Southampton. The Shinnecock object to a number of the district court’s factual and legal conclusions, including its findings: (1) that tribal sovereign immunity from suit does not bar this action; (2) that the Shinnecock’s aboriginal title to the land at Westwoods was extinguished in the seventeenth century; (3) that even if aboriginal title had not been extinguished, equitable principles would prevent the Shinnecock’s development of a casino in violation of state and local law; and (4) that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) supplanted any federal common law right the Tribe may have had to operate the casino. They also argue that the Bureau of Indian Affairs’s recent recognition of the Shinnecock Indian Nation moots the injunction.
We conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and thus do not reach the merits of this appeal.
Here are the materials in Canadian St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Town of Bombay:
Briefs for the Appellees:
City of Syracuse and Corporate Appellee’s Brief
Previous coverage and appellant’s brief here.
Here is Bond Schoenck and King’s opening brief.
Here is Oneida’s answer brief.
Lower court materials here.
The Buffalo Law Review has published, ‘The Power to Tax is the Power to Foreclose: Reuniting Law and Logic in Tribal Immunity from Suit.”
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.