Here:
Supreme Court
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland Cert Petition [all cert stage briefs]
Here:
Questions presented:
The Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (“MILCSA”) established a Self-Sufficiency Fund for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians to receive judgment funds that settled claims against the United States for the unconscionable taking of tribal lands. The statute, which codified a negotiated agreement between the Tribe and the United States, gave the Tribe’s Board of Directors exclusive authority over the Self-Sufficiency Fund, including determinations about the proper use of Fund capital and interest. The broad purposes for which the Tribe may expend Fund interest under MILCSA include the “enhancement of tribal lands.” §108(c)(5). And MILCSA requires the Secretary of the Interior to hold in trust “[a]ny lands” acquired with Fund interest. §108(f). The questions presented are:
- Whether Congress delegated to the Department of the Interior under MILCSA the authority to reject a mandatory trust submission based on the agency’s own view about whether the purchase of land satisfied §108(c), notwithstanding the statutory command that “[a]ny lands acquired using amounts from interest or other income of the [Tribe’s] Self-Sufficiency Fund shall be held in trust by the Secretary [of the Interior] for the benefit of the tribe.” §108(f).
- Whether “enhancement of tribal lands” in §108(c)(5) of MILCSA includes a land acquisition that adds to or augments the size of the Tribe’s total landholdings.
Lower court materials here.
Additional briefs:
Ho-Chunk Inc. Cert Petition in Tax Dispute with Nebraska
Here is the petition in HCI Distribution Inc. v. Hilgers:
Questions presented:
I. Under this Court’s decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), may a state directly regulate commerce between tribal economic development entities on the tribe’s own reservation lands without a showing of exceptional circumstances?
II. In conducting the balancing test under White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), may a court discount a tribe’s interests in self-determination and self-sufficiency based upon the court’s view of the significance of the tribe’s economic development activities?
III. Did the Eighth Circuit’s modification of the District Court’s injunction effectively rewrite Nebraska’s escrow and bond statutes, substituting the court’s decision for that of the state legislature, in violation of the standards set forth in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006) and other precedents of this Court?
Lower court materials here.
Utah v. United States Cert Stage Materials
ALI-CLE: “American Indian Law Developments” w/ Fletcher — Nov. 13, 2024 @ Noon
Here:
Why You Should Attend
From the early 19th century to today, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have significantly shaped the lives and rights of American Indian communities. These rulings impact critical areas like governance, jurisdiction, natural resource management, and religious freedoms. By attending this course, you will gain valuable insights into the legal struggles and triumphs that have defined American Indian history. The program highlights key issues such as tribal sovereignty, land rights, treaty obligations, and cultural preservation, showing how the Supreme Court has influenced the legal landscape of American Indian rights.
What You Will Learn
Attendees will dive into the evolving field of American Indian law with a special focus on U.S. Supreme Court decisions that directly affect tribal sovereignty, land rights, and treaty obligations. With these legal issues becoming increasingly relevant in today’s practice—impacting areas like environmental law and civil rights—understanding the foundational cases and legal challenges faced by Native communities is critical. This course will arm you with the knowledge to address these complex legal questions with confidence and precision.
Questions will be submitted live to the faculty and all registrants will receive downloadable course materials to accompany the program.
Who Should Attend
This course is ideal for attorneys who are interested in or currently practicing in areas that intersect with Native American law. It is particularly valuable for those working in fields related to civil rights, land use, environmental law, and government relations, as well as those involved in representing tribal governments or advocating for Native communities.
Additionally, public officials, policymakers, and educators seeking to broaden their understanding of tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, and the historical context of U.S. Supreme Court decisions impacting Native American law will benefit greatly from the insights provided in this program. Whether you are seeking to enhance your legal practice or simply deepen your knowledge of the complexities of Native American legal issues, this course offers essential learning for anyone committed to justice and equity in this vital area of law.
SCOTUS Denies Cert in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Arizona
National Constitution Center Panel with Richotte and Fletcher TODAY: “Native Americans and the Supreme Court”
Here:
In celebration of Native American Heritage month, Keith Richotte Jr., author of the forthcoming book, The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution and Matthew L.M. Fletcher of the University of Michigan discuss Native American history and law through the stories of landmark Supreme Court cases. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
Register Here to Attend Online
Federal Cert Opposition Brief in Apache Stronghold
Blast from the Past: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Amicus Brief in Solem v. Bartlett
Teaching “Indian country” today. . . .
Authors: Rick West, Susan Williams, Kevin Gover, Art Lazarus, Reid Chambers, and William Perry.
Tribal Amicus Briefs Supporting Cert Petition in Oak Flat Case
Here:
Cert petition here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.