Here is “Lawsuit Seeks Background on DOJ ‘Apology’ in Supreme Court Indian Cases.”
If you don’t have a NLJ subscription, google the title through google news.
We posted the complaint here. You may also access the video for a limited time here.
Here are the cert stage briefs:
South Dakota Bankers Amicus Brief
UPDATE: SCOTUS denied cert on May 5.
Here:
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (as filed)
Question presented:
Does Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (2014), require the dismissal of a State’s suit to prevent tribal officers from conducting gaming that would be unlawful under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and a state-tribal compact when
• the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief has been brought against tribal officials – not the tribe;• the gaming will occur in Indian country, on the land of another tribe; and
• the state-tribal compact’s arbitration provision does not require arbitration before filing suit?
Lower court materials here.
Here are the new materials in the case captioned State of Michigan v. Payment (W.D. Mich.):
2015-03-20 Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
2015-03-20 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
71 Michigan Response to Motion to Dismiss
The state’s amended complaint is here.
Here is today’s order list.
The cert petition is here.
Here is the order list for today.
The Stockbridge petition is here.
Here:
Western Sky v Jackson Cert Petition
Questions presented:
I. Whether the validity of an arbitration clause is determined exclusively by the statutory requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), as held by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits – or by a common-law “reasonableness” test, as held by the Seventh Circuit below?
II. Whether a court may apply a state law defense in a manner that disfavors arbitration by voiding an entire arbitration clause merely because the contractually-designated arbitrator is unavailable, notwithstanding the FAA’s express directive to appoint a substitute arbitrator?
III. Whether the Seventh Circuit erroneously – and in conflict with the Second and Eighth Circuits – required a non-tribal-member’s physical entry onto the relevant Indian reservation in connection with a transaction with a tribal member before ordering tribal court exhaustion of judicial claims arising from the transaction?
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.