Brief of Amicus Curiae National Congress of American Indians et al., in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (No. 07-219).
Other briefs in this case are here.
Supreme Court
United States Cert Opposition in Carcieri v. Kempthorne
Just filed Friday: United States Cert Opposition
Here are the earlier materials at the NARF website:
Farmers Union Oil v. Guggolz — Plains Commerce Bank Redux
This is a case before the same trial judge as in Plains Commerce Bank in the D.S.D. This one is a slip and fall, but Farmers Union Oil the defendant in tribal court at Standing Rock. The judge followed Plains Commerce Bank and many other similar decisions in requiring the exhaustion of tribal court remedies, but then he took an unfortunate potshot at the CA8 opinion in Plains Commerce Bank:
I have previously cited in this order and opinion the case of Plains Commerce. I was the trial judge in that case. The case was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. As I read the appellate opinion, I was struck by the fact that such opinion would clearly and substantially broaden the jurisdiction of tribal courts in the Eighth Circuit. It would allow tribal courts to decide what common law principles were to be applied in tribal courts. This would be a significant expansion of tribal court jurisdiction in civil cases. In the past few days, I have noted that the United States Supreme Court has granted the petition of Plains Commerce for a writ of certiorari. Apparently, we will have further guidance from the Supreme Court.
MacArthur v. San Juan County Materials
The materials on MacArthur v. San Juan County (No. 07-701) are here. The petition is set for the Court’s conference on Feb. 15.
Narragansett Smokeshop Case — Jones v. Jennings — Cert Petition
A case that I suspect has a pretty good shot at being heard by the Supreme Court, Jones v. Jennings, will be on the Court’s conference agenda for January 18, 2008. The case involves the smashing of the Narragansett Tribe’s fledgling smokeshop by state officers. Jones, the police officer, broke the ankle of Jennings, a tribal member, during the conflagration (which was caught on tape and played all over Indian Country for months).
In particular, the questions presented are:
“Why Tribes Should Not Withdraw From Treaties”
From RezNet’s TriBaLOG:
Following is a statement from the office of Rodney M. Bordeaux, president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe:
On December 19th, 2007 four individuals calling themselves the Lakota Freedom Delegation held a press conference at the Plymouth Congregational Church in Washington DC where they announced a plan to withdraw from all Treaties signed by Indian Tribes with the United States.
SCt Grants Cert in Plains Commerce Bank
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co. (No. 07-411). Here and here are our previous posts on this case that include the briefs and other materials. Here is the Court’s order. Opening briefs are due Feb. 14, response briefs due on March 12.
ICT Editorial on Cert Pool Memos & Indian Law
You can read my newest Indian Country Today editorial here or here.
Here’s the text:
Each year, the U.S. Supreme Court chooses which appeals it wishes to decide. In most years, the court decides to hear fewer than 80 cases out of several thousand appeals. These usually include cases in which there is a split of authority in lower courts (often called a ”circuit split,” referencing the 13 federal circuit courts of appeals), cases in which a lower court has committed a gross error or cases in which there is a critical constitutional issue at stake. Cases in which there is no split, cases that will affect only a few people, cases involving simple correction of a minor lower court error or cases involving an unimportant issue are unlikely to be heard by the court.
Reflections on Jonathan Lethem’s Essay “Defending The Searchers”
I recently read Jonathan Lethem’s essay from his book “The Disappointment Artist.” It’s the opening essay in this collection of self-reflective essays (nice way of saying navel-gazing, kind of like this blog).
My view of this essay is that it is part of the standard “liberal” or “enlightened” commentary about the horrors that have been visited upon the Indigenous peoples of this hemisphere and especially this continent. In other words — yes, we did the Indians wrong, but so what?
United States v. Killeaney — Sixth Amendment and the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine — A Circuit Split involving Tribal Law Enforcement & Tribal Courts?
The District Court for the District of South Dakota recently declined to suppress evidence obtained in a criminal investigation at the Rosebud. This case has the potential to go to the Supreme Court (a circuit split already exists and another could arise) and could be a significant problem for tribal criminal law enforcement.
The defendant allegedly committed a crime on tribal lands, initially investigated by the tribal police and prosecuted in tribal court. The defendant made statements to police while being represented by a tribal public defender, who was not a lawyer or a law school graduate (however, the director of the tribal public defender office is a lawyer). The US would like to use those statements in the federal prosecution of the same offense. The question is when the defendant’s Miranda and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches. If the CA8 reverses this decision and holds that they attach at the tribal court level, then there will be two circuit splits.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.