Supreme Court – Page 25

1. Whether, in 1994, Congress eliminated the distinction between “historic tribes” and “created tribes” and, thereby, eliminated the requirement that a tribe must have pre-existed the United States to have tribal immunity

2. Whether the JIV, which became a quarter-blood Indian group in 1996, is a federally recognized tribe, with tribal immunity, by virtue of the fact that it is still on the list of “Indian tribal entities” eligible to receive BIA services.

Lower court materials here.

Strict Scrutiny Podcast Recap of the Yellen v. Chehalis Oral Argument

May 6, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Barking Goldfish,” from Season 2 of the Strict Scrutiny podcast. Around 18:30, the crew starts talking about Chehalis argument. The transcript is available here (the Chehalis bit starts on page 7).

Marcia Coyle’s National Law Journal article, “Resolving Stalemate, Supreme Court Picked Lawyer for Key Pandemic Argument” — which is referenced in the podcast — is here if you have a subscription.

As always, Chehalis background materials are here.

Cert Opposition Brief in Seneca County v. Cayuga Tax Case

May 6, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Brief in Opposition

The petition is here.

SCOTUSBlog: “Justices mull textualism and Alaskan exceptionalism in classifying Alaska Native corporations”

April 21, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Chehalis background materials here.

Yellen/ANCs v. Chehalis Oral Argument Transcript

April 19, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

CSPAN link here.

Background materials here.

SCOTUS Argument in Yellen/ANCs v. Chehalis

April 19, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

CSPAN link here.

Background materials here.

Strict Scrutiny Podcast Featuring Yellen v. Chehalis Preview

April 19, 2021May 6, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Transcript here.

Background materials here.

Cert Petition in Seneca Nation Citizen’s Treaty-Based Tax Immunity Claim

April 7, 2021September 13, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue:

Perkins v. Commissioner Cert Petition

Question presented:

This Court is presented with a question of first impression, as to the taxability of income derived from the sale of sand and gravel, mined from treatyprotected land by an enrolled member of the Seneca Nation of Indians (“Seneca Nation”). Upon the granting of certiorari, the Court will examine the language in two federal treaties, promising not to disturb the “free use and enjoyment” of lands by the Seneca Nation and “their Indian friends residing thereon and united with them,” and protecting these lands “from all taxes” for any purpose. Treaty with the Six Nations (“Canandaigua Treaty”), art. III, Nov. 11, 1794, 7 Stat. 45; Treaty with the Senecas (“1842 Treaty”), art. 9th, May 20, 1842, 7 Stat. 590. Congress has explicitly stated the Internal Revenue Code “shall be applied to any taxpayer with due regard to any treaty obligation of the United States which applies to such taxpayer.” 26 U.S.C.A. § 894 (a)(1)(West).
The question presented is whether the United States Court of Appeals and the United States Tax Court have given “due regards” to the treaty obligations of the United States by finding these treaties had no textual support for an exemption from federal income tax applicable to an enrolled Seneca member whose income is derived from the
lands of the Seneca Nation. Perkins v. Comm’r, 970 F.3d 148, 162-67 (2d. Cir. 2020).

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE (5/1/21):

Starna Amicus Brief

Commissioner BIO