Here:
Question presented:
The question presented is whether sovereign immunity bars an American Indian tribe from seeking Ex parte Young relief from the unconstitutional enforcement of a state tax scheme merely because that relief might require refunds for taxes unlawfully collected in the future.
Lower court materials and my commentary here.
Here:
Friends of Amador County v. Jewell
14-340
Issue: Whether, in an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., a putative Indian tribe may invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary’s decision to recognize it as a tribe.
We posted on this matter here.
Also, the petition was yesterday’s petition of the day.
Here:
Buena Vista Rancheria Opposition
Question presented:
Whether, in an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., a putative Indian tribe may invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary’s decision to recognize it as a tribe.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the briefs in support of the petition:
Alec L v McCarthy Cert Petition
Here is Leading Case: Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014).
An excerpt:
While the Court’s decision is a victory for those who feared the abrogation of tribal immunity, its suggestion that states seek remedies in state law signals approval of leaving the resolution of legal questions central to state-tribe disputes to the states, even when the question concerns the extent of Indian land. Such a view would be inconsistent with recent trends generally favoring greater federal control and congressional support for tribal self-determination, and could result in actions that are detrimental to tribes.
Here:
11-7-14 Stockbridge-Munsee Cert Petition_(filed)
Questions presented:
In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), this Court held that courts may not override Congress’ judgment and apply laches to summarily dispose of claims at law filed within a statute of limitations established by Congress, thereby foreclosing the possibility of any form of relief. Equitable remedies may be foreclosed at the litigation’s outset due to a delay in commencing suit only in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as the need to prevent unjust hardship on innocent third parties. Id. at 1978.
The question presented is: Where Petitioner’s claims were filed within the statutory-limitations period established by Congress, did the court of appeals contravene this Court’s
decision in Petrella by invoking delay-based equitable principles to summarily dismiss all of Petitioner’s federal treaty, statutory and common-law claims, including one for money damages as upheld by this Court in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 470 U.S. 226, 246 (1985)?
Lower court materials here. En banc petition materials here.
Here:
Menominee Indian Tribe Cert Petition
Question presented:
Whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied this Court’s Holland decision when it ruled – in direct conflict with a holding of the Federal Circuit on materially similar facts – that the Tribe did not face an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act?
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Buena Vista Rancheria Opposition
The United States has waived its right to respond.
The cert petition is here.
Here are the materials in State of Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (W.D. Mich.):
55 State Response to Motion to Dismiss
58 Soo Tribe Response to Motion for Relief
63 DCT Order to Adjourn and Reschedule Oral Argument
Sixth Circuit materials are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.