Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cert Petition in Two Shields v. Wilkinson

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Two Shields Cert Petition

ILTF Amicus Brief in Support of Petition

Law Profs Amicus Brief in Support of Petition

Questions presented:

In Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 (1990) (per curiam), this Court unanimously held that joint tortfeasors are not required parties under Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because “[i]t has long been the rule that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit.” Id. at 7. Six circuits have recognized the rule that joint wrongdoers are not required parties under Rule 19(a). Three circuits now have followed the opposite rule in holding that, in some circumstances, a joint tortfeasor is a required party, while case law in the Seventh Circuit is conflicted. The Eighth Circuit below followed the minority line of the circuit split to affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action under Rule 19 for failure to join the United States.

The question presented is: Does Rule 19 incorporate the common law rule that joint tortfeasors are not required parties?

Lower court materials here.

Supreme Court Petition Involving NAGPRA, Rule 19, and Tribal Immunity

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the petition in White v. Regents of the University of California:

White Cert Petition

Questions presented:

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which governs repatriation of human remains to Native American tribes, contains an enforcement provision that states, “The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by any person alleging a violation of this chapter and shall have the authority to issue such orders as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this chapter.” 25 U.S.C. § 3013. Over a strong dissent, a divided Ninth Circuit panel held that a party can prevent judicial review of controversial repatriation decisions by claiming a tribe is a “required party” under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the tribe invokes tribal immunity. The questions presented are:
1. Whether Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a district court dismiss any case in which a Native American tribe with immunity is deemed to be a “required party.”
2. Whether tribal immunity extends to cases where Rule 19 is the only basis for adding a tribe, no relief against the tribe is sought, and no other forum can issue a binding order on the dispute; and if so, whether Congress abrogated tribal immunity as a defense to claims arising under NAGPRA.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE (1/4/16): Anthropologists Amicus Brief

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States.

Supreme Court Merits Briefs

Menominee Tribe Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

US Brief

Menominee Reply

Cert Stage Briefs

Cert Petition

US Brief

D.C. Circuit Materials

DC Circuit Opinion

Menominee Opening Brief 2013

IHS Brief

Menominee Reply Brief

District Court Materials

DCT Order Dismissing Menominee Claims

IHS Motion to Dismiss

Menominee Motion for Summary J

Earlier D.C. Circuit Materials

DC Circuit Opinion 2010

 

Nebraska v. Parker Background Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials we’ve collected on Nebraska v. Parker.

Supreme Court Merits Briefs

Nebraska Opening Brief

Omaha Tribal Council Brief

US Brief

Merits Stage Amicus Briefs

Village of Hobart Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

Scholars Brief

Cert Stage Briefs

State of Nebraska v Parker cert petition

United States Cert Opp Brief

Eighth Circuit Materials

CA8 Opinion

Nebraska Opening Brief

Tribe Brief

US Brief

Nebraska Reply Brief

District Court Materials

The 2nd amended complaint is here: Complaint

The tribal motion to dismiss is here: Motion to Dismiss

The opposition is here: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

The reply is here: Reply Brief

The court’s stay order and opinion is here: DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order Granting Nebraska Motion to Intervene

Nebraska Motion to Intervene

Opposition to Motion to Intervene

Nebraska Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene

118 Village of Pender Brief

114 Omaha Tribe Brief

127 Federal Brief

126 Nebraska Brief

134 Nebraska Response

135 US Response

136 Village of Pender Response

138 Omaha Tribe Response

140 Opinion

Tribal Court

Village of Pender v Morris — Omaha Tribal Court

Menominee Tribe’s Reply in Supreme Court Case

Sarah M Donnelly

Reply brief for Petitioner here.

Previous briefs and materials posted here.

Dollar General Reply Brief

Teresa Walrod

“Petitioners are the non-Indian operators of a
business on a tribal reservation. Respondent Doe is a
member of the tribe. Doe seeks to hale petitioners
into his tribal court, asking the tribe to award him
millions of dollars in damages (including punitive
damages) for an alleged violation of unwritten tribal
tort law by one of petitioners’ employees.”

Dollar General Reply Brief

Additional Briefs HERE

 

Wasatch County v. Ute Indian Tribe Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

In Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 409 (1994), this Court granted certiorari “to resolve the direct conflict between” the Tenth Circuit and the Utah Supreme Court over whether Congress has diminished the lands of the Uintah Valley and Uncompaghre Indian Reservation. This Court adopted the state court’s holding that the lands have been diminished, such that those lands are not Indian Country.
The Tenth Circuit is not giving up, however. It has held that its prior precedent justifies expressly refusing to follow Hagen,except to the limited extent absolutely compelled with respect to the precise facts of this Court’s ruling. In this case, the Tenth Circuit went substantially further still and held that its earlier (admittedly erroneous) holding that the reservation has not been diminished binds even petitioner Wasatch County, which was not a party to any of the prior litigation. Despite this Court’s determination to resolve the conflict between the federal and state courts in Hagen, that conflict continues to persist.
The Question Presented is:
Did the court of appeals err in defying this Court’s decision in Hagen v. Utah and enjoining a proper state court prosecution of a tribal member on lands that this Court has held have been diminished by Congress?
Lower court materials here.

Navajo Nation Amicus Brief in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Navajo Amicus Brief in Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Petition for Hearing in Torres v. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Petition for Rehearing

Cert petition has already been denied, here.

Cert Stage Briefing Complete in Jensen v. EXC Inc.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Jensen Cert Petition

EXC Cert Opp

Jensen Reply

Lower court materials here.