Supreme Court – Page 101

Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority Cert Petition

September 10, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Questions presented:

1) Whether the Ninth Circuit misconstrued and misunderstood requirements for finding a Federal Trust Responsibility to Indians. Is the pervasive role of the federal government based on the administration of the law as well as the letter of the law?

2) Is there a conflict in the Circuits on this issue? Compare Brown v. United States, 86 F.3d 1554, 1560-61 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and other cases in the Federal Circuit with the decision of the Ninth Circuit in this case below (Marceau III, 540 F.3d 916, 928 (9th Cir. 2008).

3) Is there a special burden on the federal government as it relates to Indian Housing in view of the Congressional Acts on Housing, the disadvantage to Indians caused by the Indian Allotment Act which prohibits Indians from holding title to their land, and the Indian Trust Responsibility of the federal government?

4) Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in summarily dismissing Plaintiffs’ APA claim as time barred when the true state of affairs was not discovered until well within the statute of limitations? Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in not considering the federal Indian Trust Responsibility in connection with this decision?

5) Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in holding that HUD had no duty to act on a specific request of the Housing Authority and the Blackfeet Tribe to “fix it?” Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in not considering the federal Indian Trust Responsibility in connection with this decision.

Lower court materials here.

The Supreme Court denied cert in an earlier stage of this litigation here.

Samish Indian Nation Cert Opposition Brief in Trust Breach Case

September 6, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Samish Cert Opp

The cert petition is here.

Lower court materials here.

Materials in Tribal Challenges to HUD Funding Reductions and Grant Money Recapture Actions

September 5, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Fort Peck Housing Authority v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Colo.):

DCT Order in Fort Peck v HUD

Fort Peck Opening Brief

HUD Answer Brief

Fort Peck Reply

And the materials in Nambé Pueblo Housing Authority v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Colo.):

DCT Order in Nambe Pueblo Case

Nambe Pueblo Opening Brief

HUD Response Brief

Nambe Reply

Earlier materials in Fort Peck Housing Authority v. HUD are here.

BIA Agent Subject to Bivens Action Files Cert Petition

September 4, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the petition in Oravec v. Cole:

Oravec v Crane Cert Petition

The question presented:

Whether a motion to dismiss brought by a federal law enforcement officer asserting qualified immunity should be granted under Aschroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), where the complaint alleges a Bivens claim through nothing more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of the cause of action, general and unsupported statistics and musings, and alleged policy problems having nothing to do with the particular officer.

Lower court materials here.

On Using Indians and Tribes as Shills in the Supreme Court

August 30, 2012August 30, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

I’ve defended the Office of Solicitor General in the past, lamented that despite their best efforts, they keep losing Indian cases as the tribal trustee. But lately, it seems like the SG is using Indian tribes as shills to clean up some other messes. They used the Tohono O’odham Section 1500 CFC suit to clean up that mess — they waited for years for the right case, and when the Indian cases came, that was the right time. The OSG may have thought that the tribal contract support costs cases were the right cases to clean up the mess with the Congressional Judgment Fund (they were wrong).

Now another tribe has given the government a chance to clean up another mess — attorney fees under the Equal Justice Act. The case is Pecore v. United States (Pecore Cert Petition, lower court materials here). I know next to nothing about the EJA, but if the petition is right, and there is a serious circuit split, then the government might jump right in. We’ll know at the end of next month when the response to the cert petition is due. If the government acquiesces, we must all realize they’re doing it because the petitioner is tribal. Tribal interests are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to favored, repeat parties at the Supreme Court.

A footnote — recall the Arizona cert petition on the next major immigration case filed earlier this summer. In the lower court, when Arizona had no say in the caption, the case was called Gonzales v. Arizona. Gonzales was the lead plaintiff, and a lot of people and groups signed on. Now that Arizona has lost below, they rewrote the caption. The case is now captioned Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. All the rest of the respondents are listed in alphabetical order, including Gonzales, except the tribal respondents, who are listed first. If the Court hears this case, it’ll be an Indian-related case first and foremost. Arizona knows what it’s doing.

Craven v. Cobell Cert Petition

August 25, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Craven Cert Petition

The questions presented:

In a decision that conflicts with many decisions of both this Court and other appellate circuits, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the final approval of a contested settlement of a long-standing class action involving mismanagement of land trusts for American Indians. Without allowing them to opt out, the settlement extinguishes the rights of the class members to any accounting of the moneys they are owed, in exchange for a one-time $1,000 payment. Then, despite the class members’ ignorance of the amount to which they would be entitled, the settlement offers an additional baseline sum of at least $800 in exchange for which they relinquish any rights to sue on dozens of related claims.

This settlement was approved over the objections of a number of class members. In addition to the bargain described above, it afforded a $99 million fee to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, and incentive payments ranging between $150,000 and $2 million for each of the named plaintiffs.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether a court may impose on an objector the burden to provide evidence of a structural conflict where it concedes that the defendant’s conduct has destroyed any such evidence.

2. Whether the payment of incentives to named plaintiffs of an amount more than eighty times the award due each class member compromises their ability to adequately represent the class at settlement.