Here is the petition in Klickitat County v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation:
Questions presented:
1. Whether, or in what circumstances, a court may override an Act of Congress adopting a boundary for an Indian reservation, and set its own boundary.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by holding-in conflict with the decisions of this Court, including a decision involving the very boundary at issue-that the Reservation encompasses the area at issue.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition in Penobscot Nation v. Frey:
Here is the petition in United States v. Frey:
Question presented (from the Penobscot petition):
Whether the Maine Indian Settlement Acts— consistent with this Court’s precedents on statutory interpretation and the Indian canons of construction— codify the historical understanding of the Penobscot Nation, the United States, and the State that the Penobscot Reservation encompasses the Main Stem of the Penobscot River.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Merits Stage
Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Amicus Brief
Cert Stage
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo’s Cert Petition
Reply of petitioners Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
Brief amicus curiae of United States in favor of SCOTUS review
Fifth Circuit
Texas v Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 5th Circuit Opinion
Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Amicus Brief
District Court
54 tribe supplemental memo re cause of action
83 Tribe Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
97 Texas Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims
121 First Amended Counterclaims
146 Texas Motion for Summary Judgment
147 Texas AG Motion for Summary Judgment
153 Tribe Response to Texas AG
Merits Stage Materials
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Amicus Brief
Tribal Governments Amicus Brief
Cert Stage Materials
United States’ Brief in Opposition
Tenth Circuit Materials
United States v Denezpi Tenth Circuit Opinion
District Court Materials
1-1 Criminal Information Sheet
32 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy Grounds
Here:
Question presented:
Whether the 1855 Treaty of Detroit established a federal reservation for the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians?
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Questions presented:
1. In view of Sherrill, whether New York tribes exercise “concurrent” jurisdiction over fee lands within the plenary taxing and regulatory authority of the state and local governments, thereby enabling those tribes to engage in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and cause the same or greater disruptions of settled expectations condemned by this Court in Sherrill.
2. Whether fee lands under plenary state and local taxation and regulation (per Sherrill) constitute “Indian lands” under IGRA because those lands are located within the Cayugas’ historic reservation.
3. Whether the Cayuga Nation’s ancient reservation was disestablished.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of the Interior:
Question presented:
Whether the Secretary can acquire land in trust on behalf of Indians whose federal supervision was terminated by Congress.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition in Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Bonta:
Questions presented:
1. Whether an Indian tribe incorporated by federal charter under section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. § 5124) is an “Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior” authorized to bring suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1362.
2. Whether the Indian Trader Statutes (25 U.S.C. §§ 261-263) or the Bracker balancing test (see White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980)) preempts the State of California’s regulation of intertribal cigarette sales, where an Indian tribe sells tribally manufactured cigarettes to Indian tribal buyers on their home reservations.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Please join us for the 2021 Annual CLE of the New Mexico State Bar’s Indian Law Section on November 4, 2021!
2021 Annual Indian Law Institute: Continuing to Advance the Profession in Times of Uncertainty
Webcast Program | Thursday, November 4th: 9:00am-5:00pm (MT) | 4.0G, 2.0 EP
Join the Indian Law Section of the New Mexico State Bar for the “Continuing to Advance the Profession in Times of Uncertainty” Annual CLE!
H. Chico Gallegos, Gallegos Law Office
Prof. Gabe Pacyniak, UNM School of Law
Richard W. Hughes, Rothstein Donatelli LLP
Stanley Pollack, Contract Attorney, Navajo Nation Department of Justice
Carolyn Abeita, VanAmberg, Rogers, Yepa, Abeita, Gomez & Wilkinson, LLP
Ann Rodgers, Chestnut Law Offices, PA
Darrin Rock, Tax Administrator, Santa Clara Pueblo
Matthew Campbell, Native American Rights Fund (NARF)
Joel Williams, Native American Rights Fund (NARF)
Professor Elizabeeth Reese, Stanford Law School
Stephanie Hudson, Oklahoma Indian Legal Services
Cory Albrightm Kanji & Katzen P.L.L.C.
Honorable Robert Medina, Judge, Pueblo of Tesuque Tribal Court
Honorable Vincent Knight, District Court Judge, Comanche Nation
Robert Bamberger “Bam” Greiwe, Public Defender, Pueblo of Zuni
****Optional Attendance****
Annual Meeting to be presented at 12 noon during the lunch break
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.