Shinnecock Indian Nation v. New York Cert Stage Briefs

Here:

Shinnecock Cert Petition

15-1215acFederalIndianLawProfessors

NY Cert Opp

Shinnecock Indian Nation Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Cert Stage Briefs Complete in LRB & Soaring Eagle v. NLRB Petitions

Here they are for the LRB v. NLRB petition:

Little River Petition and Appendix COMBINED

US Cert Opposition

Little River Reply

Here they are for Soaring Eagle v. NLRB:

Saginaw Cert Petition and Appendix- Filed

US Cert Opposition

Saginaw Cert Reply FINAL

All the briefs are available here at the background materials page for these two cases.

These materials have been submitted for the June 23 Conference at the Supreme Court (docket page here and here).

SCOTUS Denies Cert in La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. Interior

Here is today’s order list.

Cert stage briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Seneca Gaming Case, Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri

Here is the order list today.

Briefs here.

News Profile of Samoan Birthright Citizenship Cases

From Mother Jones, here is “The Obama Administration Is Using Racist Court Rulings to Deny Citizenship to 55,000 People.”

HT to How Appealing.

United States Opposes Cert in NLRB Cases

Here are those briefs:

15-1024 Little River Band

15-1034 Soaring Eagle

Cert petitions are here and here.

California v. Pauma Cert Stage Briefs

Here are the briefs in California v. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation:

Cal v Pauma Cert Petn

Pauma Cert Opposition Brief

And Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation v. California:

Pauma Cert Petn

California Cert Opposition Brief

Lower court materials here (panel, en banc).

 

La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. DOI Cert Stage Briefs

Here:

Cert Petition

Energy Defendants Cert Opp

US Cert Opp

Reply

News Profile of Cert Denial in Knight v. Thompson 

Here is “Why Native American Inmates Can’t Wear Their Hair Long in Alabama.”

Snarky News Commentary about Pro-Football Inc.’s Cert Petition

Hey it’s Friday! 🙂

From Above the Law, here is “Redskins Lawyers Act Like Complete Jerks, Surprising Nobody.”

An excerpt:

As Alison Frankel of Reuters reports, the Redskins’ attorneys from Biglaw heavyweights Arnold & Porter and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan wrote:

“This court relies on a robust adversarial process to fully vet questions before it,” the cert petition said. “The Team, not (The Slants), is the best suited to serve this function here.”

The ATL piece is pretty snarky, but raises a few interesting points, about which I have no intention of being snarky.

If you’ve read cert pool memos, then you might know this is a thing. Clerks will assess the quality of a brief and the name recognition or lack thereof in analyzing whether to recommend a grant. A poorly written petition in a case that is otherwise certworthy may be denied while the Court waits for the better vehicle. The kind of candor from the Supreme Court bar in a cert petition, I would have thought, seems ripe for snarky commentary. But the “Team”‘s lawyers really are among the very best.

Also, “The Slants” are doing all this for the right to be be satirical. Not so the “Team”! These are very, very different postures. And surely the Court knows this.

Finally, trying to piece together the strategy here now that there appear to be only eight Justices for the foreseeable future. The Federal Circuit ruled in favor of “The Slants”, so IF there is a 4-4 ideological split on the Court on this issue (HUGE IF), then they prevail and Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act is unenforceable in the Federal Circuit. The “Team” lost at the district court level, and who knows what was going to happen at the Fourth Circuit, so they’re trying to short circuit the “Slants”, but for what purpose? Really, there’s no help for anyone at SCOTUS if there’s a 4-4 split. Unless the “team”‘s counsel suspects there’s not really a 4-4 split! Of course. I wonder what the strategy sessions have concluded in terms of each Justice. Surely there are the four First Amendment stalwarts that signed on to Citizens United and Hobby Lobby (the Chief, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito), so which of the other four is likely to join?