Here.
SCOTUSBlog Preview of Nebraska v.Parker
Here.
Supreme Court
La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. DOI Cert Petition
Here:
Question presented:
Whether there is a Religious Freedom Restoration Act violation when the Government denies Native Americans access to land necessary for religious rites by the threat of civil or criminal trespass prosecution.
Lower court materials here.
Garrett Epps on the Limits of the Constitution to Govern the US
Very interesting essay, frankly acknowledging the limitations of both the Constitution to govern and the Supreme Court to decide matters involving Indian country.
From the Atlantic, here is “Can the Constitution Govern America’s Sprawling Empire?”
Cert Petition (Yes, Another One) in Challenge to Crow Water Settlement
Here is the petition in Crow Allottees v. Dept. of Justice:
Question presented:
Can the water rights owned by individual Crow Indian allottees – which this Court in United States v. Powers, 305 U.S. 527 (1939) recognized as distinct individual rights, separate from water rights possessed by the Crow Tribe – be awarded to the Crow Tribe in negotiations between the United States, the tribe, and the State of Montana?Further, do the Montana Courts have jurisdiction to decide these questions of federal law related to allottees’ rights?
Lower court materials: briefs, Mont SCT Opinion.
Related federal court materials here.
NCAI Cert Stage Amicus Brief in Jury Race Discrimination Challenge in State Court
Here is the brief filed in Rodriguez v. Colorado:
Supreme Court Cert Petition Filed in CACGEC v. Chaudhuri
Here is the petition in Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri:
Questions presented:
1. Whether Congress, by enacting legislation permitting an Indian tribe to purchase land on the open market and to hold it in “restricted fee,” created “Indian country,” thereby completely divesting a state of its territorial sovereignty over that land, despite the absence of any explicit statutory language reflecting congressional intent to transfer sovereignty to the tribe?
2. Whether the Indian Commerce Clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8) gives Congress authority to completely divest a state of the sovereignty it had
previously exercised over land for more than two centuries and transfer that sovereignty to an Indian tribe by enacting legislation permitting an Indian tribe to buy such land on the open market and to hold it in “restricted fee.”3. Whether the mere congressional designation of “restricted fee” status on tribally owned land pursuant to the Indian Nonintercourse Act (25 U.S.C. § 177) implies an intent to transfer governmental power over that land to the tribe?
Lower court materials here.
SCOTUS Grants Cert in United States v. Bryant
Still Another Cert Petition: Oklahoma “Sacred Rain Arrow” License Plate
Here is the petition in Cressman v. Thompson:
Question presented:
Oklahoma compels Keith Cressman to display an image of the “Sacred Rain Arrow” sculpture from his vehicle – via his standard license plate – although he objects to displaying that image. This Court addressed the same issue in Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), holding New Hampshire violated a couple’s right to free speech by forcing them to display the state motto “Live Free or Die” on their vehicle’s standard license plate over their objection. But the Tenth Circuit distinguished Wooley on the ground that Wooley concerned words, not images.
The Tenth Circuit – creating a conflict with the Sixth Circuit- held artistic images disseminated in significant numbers are not pure speech and must be analyzed as symbolic speech instead. The Tenth Circuit then compounded a pre-existing circuit split on the protection afforded symbolic speech, using an approach different from all others, holding symbolic speech must present an “identifiable message to a reasonable observer” to ensure constitutional covering. And, in applying these novel principles to Cressman’s compelled speech claim, the Tenth Circuit contravened precedent further in holding Cressman’s speech was not compelled because his objection did not match the inference a “reasonable observer” would draw about the image.
The question presented is whether the State can compel citizens to display images that are objectionable to them?
Lower court materials here.
Yet Another Cert Petition: Indian Country Crime, Lesser-Included Offense Instruction
Here is the petition in Decker v. United States:
Question presented:
In a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §2241, for “aggravated sexual abuse by an Indian in Indian territory,” occurring in Battle Mountain, Nevada, where a victim testifies to unconsented sexual penetration and the defendant denies any sexual contact; and a Nevada case, Crawford v. State, 107 Nev. 345, 351, 811 P.2d 67, 70-71 (1991), mandates that the giving of an attempted sexual assault jury instruction under those circumstances constitutes reversible error; does the Assimilated Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13(a), or 18 U.S.C. § 1153(b) mandate that federal courts are constrained to follow Crawford and either not give the attempt instruction or be reversed if they do?
The question of whether case law viz. state substantive lesser-included offenses must be assimilated into a prosecution where the state case law prohibits the giving of the instruction, was not addressed either in Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (1973) or in Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (1998); and United States v. Walkingeagle, 974 F.2d 551 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1019 (1993) presents both sides of the issue. Is the Walkingeagle dissent correct as a matter of law?
Ed Gehres Dollar General Post-Argument Analysis
The best line (from a very good analysis):
The outcome of this case is tough to call after the argument. It looks to be a case that may be decided on a tight vote. But one thing is absolutely certain. Regardless of the outcome, sophisticated tribes and businesses will spend increasing amounts of energy at the bargaining table fashioning partnerships where consents to applicable law and forum are clear and express.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.