Here:
Question presented:
Whether the United States can regulate fishing on Alaska’s navigable waters under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, when its statutory authority is limited to “public lands” and that term is defined as “lands, waters, and interests therein … the title to which is in the United States.”
Lower court materials here.
John LaVelle has published “Uses and Abuses of Johnson v. M’Intosh in Native American Land Rights Cases: Investigative Insights from the Indian Law Justice Files” in the Montana Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
The 200th anniversary of the foundational Indian law decision Johnson v. M’Intosh has come and gone, with many scholars contributing criticism and commentary. The dominant focus has been the case’s notorious embrace of the so-called “doctrine of discovery,” an odious theory for rationalizing European nations’ claims of superior rights to lands occupied by Indigenous Native American peoples. Commanding less attention, however, is the Johnson decision’s core protective legal feature, i.e., its reinforcing the United States government’s duty to guard against the alienation of Indian lands through private, unauthorized acquisitions.
This Article offers a somewhat different appraisal of Johnson v. M’Intosh in the context of controversies over Indigenous rights. Notwithstanding the case’s offensive dicta, the unanimous Johnson opinion retains efficacy in safeguarding Native American land rights, provided certain infamous abuses of the decision as precedent can be identified and rectified. Accordingly, this Article examines instances of the modern Supreme Court’s distorting and misusing Johnson v. M’Intosh to damage, weaken, or deny Indian land rights. In centering attention on this abuse, the Article draws on eye‑opening, seldom‑viewed documents found among the papers of Supreme Court Justices archived at the Library of Congress and various universities across the country. The Article also discusses a series of modern‑era opinions by Supreme Court Justices that exemplify instructive conformity to and reliance upon Johnson’s protective features. Moreover, as a response to the joint call for papers issued by the Montana Law Review and the Public Land & Resources Law Review, the Article does not take merely a rear‑view‑mirror look at Johnson v. M’Intosh. Rather, this Article aspires to cast light on judicial distortions and misrepresentations of Johnson to help illuminate a “Vision for the Future” in legal battles over Indigenous property rights.
An accompanying Compendium of Exhibits from the Papers of Supreme Court Justices is available here.
Here is the brief in Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections and Public Safety:
Here:
John P. LaVelle, Compendium of Exhibits From the Papers of Supreme Court Justices, 88 Mont L. Rev. Online (2025).
Here:
Question presented:
Whether a state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over an Indian for conduct in Indian country absent a valid congressional grant of authority.
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Questions presented:
Whether the District Court violated Petitioners’ due process rights by granting summary judgment without first fulfilling its gatekeeping obligation under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to rule on the parties’ pending motions to exclude or limit expert testimony?
Whether the District Court erred by relying on the Respondents’ expert witness in its summary judgment decision without first addressing the Petitioners’ motion to exclude or limit Respondents’ expert’s testimony under Daubert?
Whether the District Court violated Petitioners’ due process rights by failing to conduct an in camera review of 4,780 documents withheld by Respondents under claims of privilege, despite having ordered such a review and having possession of the documents since May 2019?
Whether the Court improperly analyzed the Andros Treaty by not finding the Treaty ambiguous and conducting the Indian Canons analysis?
Whether the Court misapprehended the law in finding the Andros Treaty not valid under Federal law?
Lower court materials here.
Here is today’s order list, with the dissent beginning on page 6.
An excerpt:
While this Court enjoys the power to choose which cases it will hear, its decision to shuffle this case off our docket without a full airing is a grievous mistake—one with consequences that threaten to reverberate for generations. Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning. I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time. Faced with the government’s plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less. They may live far from Washington, D. C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference. “Popular religious views are easy enough to defend. It is in protecting unpopular religious beliefs that we prove this country’s commitment to . . . religious freedom.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. 617, 649 (2018) (GORSUCH, J., concurring).
Prior posts here,
The denied petitions are Lexington Ins. Co. v. Suquamish Tribe and Lexington Ins. Co. v. Mueller.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.