Here is the opinion.
Materials are here.
Supreme Court
Teck Metals v. Colville Cert Petition
Here is the petition in Teck Metals Ltd. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (No. 18-1160):
Update:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), and RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016), correctly concluded that holding Teck liable for its discharges in Canada was not an impermissible extraterritorial application of CERCLA.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with this Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), and the Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits, correctly held that a State may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant because the defendant knew its conduct would have in-state effects, where the defendant’s relevant conduct occurred elsewhere.
3. Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with the First Circuit and in tension with the opinions of this Court and several other circuits, correctly held that a defendant can be an “arranger” under CERCLA even if the defendant did not arrange for anyone else to dispose of or treat the waste.
Lower court materials here.
Wilson v. Horton’s Towing Cert Petition [Montana; Exhaustion; Civil Forfeiture]
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Does an Indian Tribe have authority under the second exception of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), to forfeit automobiles owned by non Native Americans for violation of tribal drug laws while on tribal land?
2. If so, does the Tribe have authority to seize a motor vehicle off reservation if it has probable cause to believe that the automobile previously contained illegal drugs while on tribal lands?
Lower court materials here.
High Country News Profile of Cougar Den Case
Here.
The Atlantic: “Can Congress Void a Tribal Treaty Without Telling Anyone?”
Coverage of the Herrera v. Wyoming argument, here.
King Mountain Tobacco v. US Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the Yakama Treaty must include express exemptive language” to create an exemption from a federal tax or fee.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the federal tobacco excise tax, 26 U.S.C. § 5701-5703, and the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act (“FETRA”), 7 U.S.C. § 518-519, apply to the Yakama Indians even though (1) the Yakama Treaty creates a right to travel in order to protect the Yakama Indians’ ability to trade and (2) these taxes and fees are triggered by the transport of goods – rather than by sale or manufacture.
Lower court materials here. Case tag here.
Update:
You’re invited to KU Law’s 23rd annual Tribal Law & Government Conference
The U.S. Supreme Court and the Future of Federal Indian Law
March 8, 2019 | 8:45 AM – 4:45 PM
University of Kansas School of Law
1535 W. 15th Street | Lawrence, KS
6.5 hours CLE pending in KS + MO ($60)
Registration opens in early February. Questions? Contact Rebecca Clayton at rclayton@ku.edu or visit law.ku.edu/tribal
Miccosukee Per Cap Taxation Cert Petitions
Here is the petition in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States:
Question presented:
The 2014 Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act states that, for income tax purposes, “[g]ross income does not include the value of any Indian general welfare benefit.”
The question presented is whether contrary to that plain command, gross income includes “Indian general welfare benefits” when those benefits are derived from gaming revenue pursuant to the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Here is the petition in Jim v. United States:
Questions presented:
Whether treaties with Indian tribes must be construed consistent with that tribe’s present-sense understanding of the treaty.
Whether the Miccosukee Tribe’s long-standing method of compensation for use of Tribal member lands and distributing revenue from land to its members can be considered a “mere formalism” to avoid inclusion and taxation as income to the members when the Tribe’s chosen method of compensation is soundly in line with federal law and policy.
Whether the Assistant Secretary of the Interior through its designated representative can interpret, waive, modify or exempt payments made to tribal members from inclusion as income.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE:
McNeal v. Navajo Nation Cert Petition
Here:
Question presented:
Whether the Tenth Circuit panel violated the current jurisprudence of this Court and the Congressional policy underlying IGRA by precluding the Nation from exercising its sovereign authority to permit a patron’s tort claim against the Nation and its gaming facility to be brought in state court without express congressional permission.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE (3/14/19):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.