Here:
Question presented:
Whether a generally applicable federal statute, which is silent as to its applicability to Indian Tribes, should nevertheless be presumed to apply to Tribes.
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Question presented:
Whether a generally applicable federal statute, which is silent as to its applicability to Indian Tribes, should nevertheless be presumed to apply to Tribes.
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Town of Aquinnah’s Cert Petition
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Cert Petition
Question presented:
Whether the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a statute of general application, impliedly repealed other federal statutes that specifically subject Indian tribes to state restrictions on gaming, a question that has divided the courts of appeals.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE:
Here are the merits briefs:
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:
Here are the D.C. Circuit materials:
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
87 Patchak Opposition to Gun Lake Tribe Motion
Legislative materials:
Here:
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.
Here is the petition in Coachella Valley Water District v. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians:
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):
Here:
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):
UPDATE (9/6/17):
Here is the opinion in Matal v. Tam.
Say it isn’t so Amy Poehler!
Actually, the petition is captioned Upstate Citizens for Equality v. United States:
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:
You must be logged in to post a comment.