Patchak v. Zinke Background Materials

Here are the merits briefs:

Patchak Merits Brief

Joint Appendix

US Merits Brief

Gun Lake Merits Brief

Patchak Merits Reply

Here are the amicus briefs:

Federal Courts Scholars Brief in Support of Petitioners

Fed. Cts. and Indian Law Scholars in Support of Respondents

Brief Amici Curiae of Wayland Township, et al. in Support of Respondents

Brief for the U.S. House of Representatives as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents

Brief Amicus Curiae of National Congress of American Indians in Support of Respondents

Brief Amicus Curiae of Professor Edward A Hartnett in Support of Respondents

Here are the cert stage briefs:

Patchak Cert Petition

Federal Cert Opp

Gun Lake Cert Opp

Patchak Reply

Here are the D.C. Circuit materials:

Opinion

Patchak Opening Brief

Tribe Response Brief

US Response Brief

Patchak Reply Brief

District court materials:

Patchak v Jewell – Gun Lake Tribe (Judge Leon Opinion)

78 Gun Lake Tribe Motion for Summary J

80-1 Patchak Motion for Summary J

85 US Opposition

86 Gun Lake Tribe Opposition

87 Patchak Opposition to Gun Lake Tribe Motion

88 Gun Lake Tribe Reply

90 Patchak Reply

Legislative materials:

Senate Hearing

House Report

Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act

Hackford v. Utah Cert Petition (Ute Reservation Boundaries)

Here:

Hackford v Utah Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Acts of Congress, authorizing the President to set apart and reserve any reservoir site or other lands necessary to conserve and protect the water supply for the Indians or for general agricultural development, diminished the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.

2. Whether as used in 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a), the term “Indian Country” includes the National Forest land, and the right of way running through the National Forest lands where the alleged criminal conduct occurred, for purpose of federal criminal jurisdiction.

Lower court materials here.

Water District Files Cert Petition in Agua Caliente Water Rights Matter

Here is the petition in Coachella Valley Water District v. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians:

Coachella Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether, when, and to what extent the federal reserved right doctrine recognized in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), preempts state-law regulation of groundwater.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE (8/14/17):

17-40 -42 Agua Caliente Amicus Brief

Cert Petition in Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc.

Here:

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

Whether the Yakama Treaty of 1855 creates a right for tribal members to avoid state taxes on off-reservation commercial activities that make use of public highways.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE (8/23/17):

Cougar Den Cert Opp

UPDATE (9/6/17):

Reply

 

SCOTUS Strikes Down Disparagement Provision of the Trademark Act

Here is the opinion in Matal v. Tam.

SCOTUS Denied Cert in Challenge to Oneida Trust Land Acquisition on Monday (Central New York Fair Business Assoc. v Zinke)

Missed it. Sorry. 🙂

Here’s the order list from Monday.

Petition is here.

Upright Citizens Brigade Cert Petition Challenging Indian Rights

Say it isn’t so Amy Poehler!UCB2

Actually, the petition is captioned Upstate Citizens for Equality v. United States:

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Can Congress in the exercise of its Article 1 powers infringe, reduce or diminish the territorial integrity of a State without its prior consent?
2. Does Congress possess plenary power over Indian affairs and if so does it expand the Indian Commerce Clause to authorize the displacement of State rights to territorial integrity?
3. Does the land acquisition in this case via the mechanism of 25 USC § 465 (now 25 USC § 5108), represent a violation of the limits inherently expressed in the Indian Commerce Clause that limit Congress’ power to ‘regulate’ ‘commerce?’
4. Does the 300,000-acre ancient Oneida Indian reservation in New York still exist?

Lower court materials here.

Update (7/7/17)– the adults have entered the room — here is the federal government’s cert opp brief:

Cert Opp

 

SCOTUS Grants Patchak v. Zinke

Here is the order list.

Lower court materials are here.

Initial Observations about Lewis v. Clarke

Opinion and materials here.

The initial impact could be very big. The holding is pretty broad, bringing in the doctrine of official immunity to the tribal context without the same grounding or context as state and federal official immunity doctrines. Moreover, there is no on, off reservation distinction. So on-rez torts might be an issue. 

I anticipate dozens of plaintiffs’ lawyers packaging complaints against tribal employees on a wide variety of issues to test how wide the lower courts will interpret this decisions. Civil rights, contract breaches, trespass to property, and of course tort claims. I suppose the real question is whether any tort claims against tribal officials anywhere involve a tribe’s sovereign interest. I imagine insurance companies will be calling their tribal insured right quick, and vice versa.

Another open question is whether nonmember employees sued for tort in Indian country can be sued in state courts. I think not under precedents governing Indian country suits where a tribal defendant is present, but I’m not so sure about nonmember employees. Could be a lot of litigation about questions like these.

Long term, things probably will settle down. Tribes already insure themselves from the actions of their employees. Maybe the cost of business will go up some, but I don’t anticipate terrific impacts there. Just a lot of uncertainty for a few years until everyone’s used to the new regime.

As should be unsurprising to TT readers, this case involved a confluence of Justices that disapprove of governmental immunity (Ginsburg), the conservative wing of the Court that almost never rules in favor of tribal interests, and bad optics for tribal interests. Moreover, anyone who cares about government and commercial accountability for bad actions (as one should expect from Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg) should be happy. It just smells off that SCOTUS as an institution seems to strive to protect private commercial actors from suits but does a 180 with tribal commercial activities.

I admit to being disappointed the Court cared not at all that the Tribe had set up a tribal court process to resolve these claims. This was just straight up gamesmanship by the plaintiffs’ counsel, who might have waited on purpose to bring this claim in state court where there was a two year statute of limitations as opposed to the Mohegan one year statute. There, I said it. Oh well. All the effort that tribes made to set up tort claims ordinances might have been a significant waste of time and effort. It remains to be seen.

Unanimous SCOTUS Rules Against Tribe in Lewis v. Clarke

Here is the opinion.

Materials here.