Here:
Question presented:
Whether the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a).
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE:
Environmental Federation Of Oklahoma Inc Amicus Brief
Question presented:
Does a court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction overcome the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity when the tribe has not waived immunity and Congress has not unequivocally abrogated it?
Here are the merit stage briefs:
States Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party
Cert stage briefs:
Lower court materials:
Here. Highlights are that there has been no decision on cert. in the Culverts case and that the Wampanoag’s First Circuit gaming win will remain in place.
Here:
Question presented:
In light of the clear precedent of Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001), which holds that state law enforcement officers are not subject to suit in a tribal court for claims arising out of the performance of their duties on tribal lands, did the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals err in requiring Petitioners to exhaust their remedies in the Ute Tribal Court in order to determine whether that Court has jurisdiction to hear a trespass claim arising out of Petitioners’ performance of their official duties that the Ute Indian Tribe brought against them in the Ute Tribal Court?
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE:
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the application of cy pres to this class action settlement is inappropriate because the class members have not been adequately compensated and whether this adequate compensation is best accomplished by awarding all settlement funds to the class.
2. Whether the district court failed to meet its obligation pursuant to FRCP 23(e)(1)(C) by ensuring a fair, reasonable, and adequate distribution to the class members.
3. Whether the class representatives and the class counsel engaged in self-dealing, collusion, and fraud; as well as, breaches of fiduciary duty to the class and whether those breaches should result in disgorgement of fees and incentive awards.
4. Whether it is time to set aside cy pres in class action settlement agreements because such provisions promote hidden objectives, give unfettered authority to non-parties, are unfair as a general matter, and the goals of selected entities [*9] fail to correspond to the interests of the class.
Here is yesterday’s order list.
The materials in Great Plains Lending v. CFPB are here.
The materials in Kansas v. NIGC are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.