Here are the materials in Perkins v. United States (W.D.N.Y.):
62 Perkins Motion for Summary J
78 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief
78-1 Seneca Nation Amicus Brief
80 US Motion to Strike Amicus Brief
Parallel Tax Court materials here.
Seneca Nation of Indians
Native Wholesale Supply v. California ex rel. Becerra Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether a contract for the purchase of goods entered into, and fully performed by, an Indian Tribe outside the exterior boundaries of the state in which the Tribe’s reservation is located can constitutionally subject the out of state vendor to the specific personal jurisdiction of the buyer’s state, under state laws purporting to regulate the sale of those goods in the buyer’s state.
2. Whether a state has specific personal jurisdiction to regulate a purchase of goods contract between an Indian on an Indian reservation outside the state and an Indian Tribe located within the state’s boundaries when the contract is performed on the
out of state Indian reservation.
3. Whether there is a constitutional or statutory right afforded to an Indian of one tribe to conduct business free from state regulation with an Indian of a different tribe, both of which are located in Indian country, under the Indian Commerce Clause.
4. Whether a tribally chartered corporation wholly owned by a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe is an Indian for purposes of the protections afforded to Indians under federal law.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
California COA Opinion in People ex rel. Becerra v. Native Wholesale Supply
NY Court of Appeals Affirms State Tax Collection Powers over Indian Retailers
United States Tax Court Holds Income Earned from Seneca Lands is Taxable
Here is the opinion in Perkins v. Commissioner:
Federal Court Holds Feds Cannot Tax Proceeds Derived Directly from Indian Lands
Here are the materials in Perkins v. United States (W.D.N.Y.):
- 9-1 Motion to Dismiss
- 12 Opposition
- 13 Reply
- 14 Magistrate R&R
- 15 US Objections
- 16 Perkins Objections
- 19 US Response
- 20 Perkins Response
- 21 US Reply
- 22 Perkins Reply
- 24 DCT Order
An excerpt:
This case presents what appears to be an issue of first impression: whether a treaty between the United States and Native Americans ensuring the free use and enjoyment of tribal land bars taxes on income derived directly from the land—here, the sale of gravel mined on the land. Although at least two circuit courts have suggested in dicta that “income derived directly from the land” might be exempt from taxation under such treaties, they did so to distinguish that scenario from cases where an exemption was sought for income earned in ways that do not relate to the land itself. See Lazore v. Comm’r, 11 F.3d 1180 (3d Cir. 1993); Hoptowit v. Comm’r, 709 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1983). This case presents the very issue about which those courts speculated. And for the reasons that follow, this Court agrees with their speculation and finds that the plaintiffs have plausibly stated a claim for relief under two treaties with the Native American Seneca Nation.
SCOTUS Denies Cert in Seneca Gaming Case, Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri
Cert Stage Briefs in Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri
Here:
Lower court materials here.
N.Y. Appellate Division Affirms Legality of Gaming Compacts
Here is the opinion in Schulz v. State of New York Executive:
An excerpt:
The Gaming Act, among other things, provided a statutory framework for regulating casino gambling within the state and effectuated three agreements entered into between the state and the Oneida Indian Nation, the Seneca Nation of Indians and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Indian Nations). Those agreements generally provided that the state would grant the Indian Nations exclusive gaming rights within their respective geographic areas in exchange for a percentage of the gaming revenues and/or support for the then proposed casino gambling referendum, which was passed by the voters at the November 2013 general election.
Supreme Court Cert Petition Filed in CACGEC v. Chaudhuri
Here is the petition in Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri:
Questions presented:
1. Whether Congress, by enacting legislation permitting an Indian tribe to purchase land on the open market and to hold it in “restricted fee,” created “Indian country,” thereby completely divesting a state of its territorial sovereignty over that land, despite the absence of any explicit statutory language reflecting congressional intent to transfer sovereignty to the tribe?
2. Whether the Indian Commerce Clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8) gives Congress authority to completely divest a state of the sovereignty it had
previously exercised over land for more than two centuries and transfer that sovereignty to an Indian tribe by enacting legislation permitting an Indian tribe to buy such land on the open market and to hold it in “restricted fee.”3. Whether the mere congressional designation of “restricted fee” status on tribally owned land pursuant to the Indian Nonintercourse Act (25 U.S.C. § 177) implies an intent to transfer governmental power over that land to the tribe?
Lower court materials here.
