Here is the petition in Noem v. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe:
noem-v-flandreau-cert-petition.pdf
Question presented:
Does the Bracker test currently serve as a consistent and predictable rule of law in light of the exponential expansion of Indian gaming since 1988 and the fiscal demands the industry now places on state budgets?
Lower court materials here.
Here. It features our own Kate Fort’s work on the Brackeen case.
Oral Argument Transcript:
Merits Briefs:
2020 03 20 McGirt Joint Motion for Divided Argument and Enlargement of Time
Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioner:
2020 02 11 Amicus Brief Brad Henry et al
2020 02 11 Amicus Brief Historians Legal Scholars Cherokee Nation
2020 02 11 Amicus Brief National Ass’n Criminal Defense Lawyers
2020 02 11 Amicus Brief National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center et al
2020 02 11 Amicus Brief of Muscogee Creek Nation
18-9526tsacFormerUnitedStatesAttorneys
Amicus Briefs in Support of Respondent:
2020 03 20 Amicus Brief of United States
2020 03 20 Environmenal Fderation of Oklahoma, et al, Amicus Brief
2020 03 20 Int’l Municipal Lawers and Nat’l Sheriffs’ Assn Amicus Br
2020 03 20 Tulsa Merits Amicus Brief
Oklahoma District Attorneys Amicus Brief
Cert Stage Materials:
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether a contract for the purchase of goods entered into, and fully performed by, an Indian Tribe outside the exterior boundaries of the state in which the Tribe’s reservation is located can constitutionally subject the out of state vendor to the specific personal jurisdiction of the buyer’s state, under state laws purporting to regulate the sale of those goods in the buyer’s state.
2. Whether a state has specific personal jurisdiction to regulate a purchase of goods contract between an Indian on an Indian reservation outside the state and an Indian Tribe located within the state’s boundaries when the contract is performed on the
out of state Indian reservation.
3. Whether there is a constitutional or statutory right afforded to an Indian of one tribe to conduct business free from state regulation with an Indian of a different tribe, both of which are located in Indian country, under the Indian Commerce Clause.
4. Whether a tribally chartered corporation wholly owned by a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe is an Indian for purposes of the protections afforded to Indians under federal law.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Here:
Here:
petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari.pdf
Question presented:
Whether an Indian tribe’s governing body can be stripped of its sovereign immunity from suit for actions taken by its members in their official capacities, as long as a plaintiff merely names the members individually and those officials will be bound by any judgment entered.
Lower court materials here.
Available on SSRN, here.
Here is the abstract:
In recent years, perhaps because of the influence of Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court appears to place greater emphasis on texts than ever before. “We’re all textualists now,” Justice Kagan declared in 2015. But it is one thing to say a court will prioritize the text. It is another thing to choose which text is to be prioritized.
Follow the textualism of constitutional interpretation and one sees judges prioritize the public understanding of the privileged white men in power at the time of the framing of the constitutional text. Follow the textualism of federal statutory interpretation and one sees judges prioritize the text exclusively, and if the judges engage with the legislative history of the statute they will engage with the public understanding of the legislators who enacted the law, again, largely privileged white men. The victory of textualism is not necessarily in the outcomes, but in significantly narrowing the scope of evidence available to interpret the text, in some cases to almost nothing but the bare words of the statute. Women, persons of color, and other marginalized persons and entities are almost never relevant to the textualist’s gaze.
The narrow focus of the textualist’s gaze also warps how Indian law matters are decided. The judiciary rarely considers how the governments and people most affected by the text — Indian tribes and individual Indians — understand the meaning of the text. The judiciary, whether it intends to or not, considers Indians and tribes as extraneous to the interpretive process.
Here is the petition:
Update:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Secretary of the Interior exceeded his statutory authority by taking land located within the reservation boundaries of one Indian Tribe and placing the land in trust for another Tribe, despite the objections of the first Tribe and in violation of a regulatory prohibition and the United States’ treaty promises to the first Tribe.
2. Whether the Court should hold this petition pending its disposition of Maine Community Health Options v. United States, No. 18-1023 (argued Dec. 10, 2019), because this case raises the same issue concerning implied repeals effected by appropriations laws and the proper standard for determining what law to apply.
Lower court materials here.
Here is “Briefly 3.10 – Is Half of Oklahoma Tribal Land?”
From the site:
This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we are discussing two cases pending before the Supreme Court, which will determine whether roughly half of the land in Oklahoma is actually an Indian Reservation . We’re joined by Elizabeth Reese, a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State University College of Law. Music from bensound.com.
Here is today’s order list.
The Court denied cert in Sequoia Capital Operations LLC v. Gingras; Spurr v. Pope; and Alabama-Coushatta Tribe v. Texas.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.