Sixth Circuit

2Exhibit A (Letter from DOI)

Exhibit B (letter from Gov. Snyder to Chairman Eitrem)

Exhibit C (Sault Tribe Submission for Mandatory Fee-to-Trust Acquisition)

Exhibit D (Same, for the Sibley Parcel)

Exhibit E (Sault Tribe approval of development agreement with Lansing, MI)

Exhibit F (Comprehensive Development Agreement between Sault Tribe and Lansing)

Previous coverage of the Lansing casino case here.

Gatzaros v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Cert Petition

December 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Gatzaros Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Majority Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit conflicts with the decisions of this Supreme Court and other Circuit Courts of Appeals, thereby changing the well-established rules of contract construction which require specific contract provisions govern over general provisions to resolve disputes caused by two conflicting contract provisions?

2. Whether the Majority Opinion is in direct conflict with the decisions of this Supreme Court, other Circuit Courts of Appeals and the fundamental rules of contract construction which require the application of extrinsic evidence when there is an ambiguity caused by conflicting contractual language?

3. Whether the Majority Opinion, in upholding the judicial rewriting of paragraph 8 of the Guaranty, is in direct conflict with the decisions of this Supreme Court and the other Circuit Courts of Appeals which have held the courts must give effect to contracts as written by the parties, and cannot rewrite them?

4. Whether the Majority’s failure to find the Respondents waived their contract defenses contradicts established case law in the other Circuit Courts of Appeals that a guaranty is a contract which must be enforced as written?

5. Whether the Majority’s Opinion conflicts with the well-settled standard for reviewing a Motion to Dismiss under Fed.Civ. R. 12(b)(6) when it failed to view the facts in the light most favorable to the Petitioners or accept their well-pled allegations?

Lower court materials here.

Sixth Circuit Briefs in Kelsey v. Pope

November 6, 2014September 29, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Appellant Opening Brief + Appendices

NCAI Amicus Brief + Appendix

Lower court materials here.

Updated Materials in Michigan v. Sault Tribe — State Seeks to Sue Tribal Officials

November 4, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in State of Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (W.D. Mich.):

49 Renewed Motion to Dismiss

53-1 State Motion for Relief

55 State Response to Motion to Dismiss

57 Soo Tribe Reply

58 Soo Tribe Response to Motion for Relief

60 State Reply

63 DCT Order to Adjourn and Reschedule Oral Argument

Sixth Circuit materials are here.

National Labor Relations Board Reaffirms Its Jurisdiction over Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe

October 30, 2014October 30, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order and materials:

Board Decision

SCIT Motion to Expedite

SCIT Amended Motion to Expedite

SCIT Supplemental Brief

You may recall this matter is on remand from the Sixth Circuit.

Sixth Circuit Rules in Favor of Native Prisoners in RLUIPA Matter

August 15, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Haight v. Thompson:

Appellant Brief

Appellant Letter Brief

Appellee Brief

Appellee Letter Brief

CA6 Opinion

An excerpt:

The appeal presents three questions: (1) Is there a triable issue of fact over whether RLUIPA gives the inmates a right to have access to a sweat lodge for faith-based ceremonies? (2) Is there a triable issue of fact over whether RLUIPA gives the inmates a right to buffalo meat and other traditional foods for a faith-based once-a-year powwow? (3) Does RLUIPA permit inmates to collect money damages from prison officials sued in their individual capacities? The answers, as we explain below, are yes, yes and no.