Here:
Amicus Brief of Indian Law Professors
An excerpt:
Amici write to explain how the long and shameful history of treatment of Indian children by the child welfare system in the United States demonstrates the dangers of and substantial harms inflicted by discrimination in this setting, including in particular discrimination based on the religious beliefs of government employees or agents
Miigwetch to April Youpee-Roll for taking the lead!
Here, in the National Law Review.
Here.
Here.
And, yes, we know the Marshall Project headline is inaccurate, but High Country News (publishing in tandem with M.P.) did it better: “How the Supreme Court upended a century of federal Indian law.”
Here:
Questions presented:
1. The Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act prohibits the knowing transportation of “a quantity” of more than 10,000 untaxed cigarettes in the “possession” of unauthorized persons. 18 U.S.C. § 2341(2). The first question presented is whether multiple shipments from different shippers may be aggregated to satisfy the 10,000-cigarette threshold.
2. The Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 exempts UPS by name if its tobacco-delivery agreement with New York is “honored” nationwide. 15 U.S.C. § 376a(e)(3)(B)(ii)(I). The second question presented is whether substantial compliance is a prerequisite to this statutory exemption.
Second Circuit materials here:
DCT materials here.
Here:
Questions presented:
The Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, grants the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over listed offenses committed by an “Indian.”
The Questions Presented are:I. How does one determine whether a defendant is an Indian?
II. Is Indian status a jury question?
Lower court materials here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.