Here is the order and materials:
SCIT Amended Motion to Expedite
You may recall this matter is on remand from the Sixth Circuit.
Supreme Court
MM&A Productions LLC v. Yavapai-Apache Nation Cert Petition
Here:
Question presented:
This Court has an established jurisprudence recognizing Indian sovereign immunity, and defining its scope. The Court also has an established jurisprudence on what actions will work a waiver of immunity.
This Court, however, has never decided the issue of what needs to be shown to establish authority for waiver of Indian sovereign immunity, nor whether apparent authority can be sufficient to do so. Lower courts have done so, and are split on the question of the availability of apparent authority. E.g. Rush Creek Solutions, Inc. v. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 107 P.3d 402 (Colo. App. 2004) (apparent authority appropriately invoked); Memphis Biofuels, LLC v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc., 585 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2009) (prohibiting use of apparent authority).
The question presented is whether the authority of a tribal official who signs a waiver of sovereign immunity may be established under the doctrine of apparent authority.
Lower court materials here.
SCOTUS Denies Cert in Two Indian Law Cases
Here is today’s order list.
The Court denied cert in Dupris v. Procter and Hicks v. Hudson Insurance.
Other SCOTUS Action Today: Cert Denials
Here again is the order list. The Court denied cert in other Indian law related cases.
Marcussen v. Burwell. Petition here.
Harvest Inst. v. United States. Lower court materials here.
United States v. First. Lower court decision here. Tribal court decision (I think) here.
Yowell v. Abbey. NARF page here.
The Court also denied the petition of a Saginaw Chippewa member to waive costs — Pego v. United States. Lower court decision here.
SCOTUS Issues CVSG in Dollar General v. Mississippi Choctaw
No Grants in Indian Law Cases Today
Here is today’s order from the Supreme Court. The Court granted cert in several cases, none concerning Indian law.
Cert Petition in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida Dept. of Revenue
Here:
Here is the question presented:
This Court established in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), that a plaintiff may sue state officials for prospective injunctive relief against the enforcement of an unconstitutional state law. In the intervening years, this Court and most courts of appeals have repeatedly held that Ex parte Young allows federal courts to enjoin the future enforcement of state tax schemes that violate federal law or the Constitution. This Court has also observed that an injunction requiring a state’s future compliance with federal law does not violate state sovereign immunity, even if it has a “substantial ancillary effect on the state treasury.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 278 (1986).
In this case, however, the Eleventh Circuit concluded otherwise. It departed from this Court’s precedent, and “create[d] a circuit split,” Pet. App. 24a (Jordan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), when it held that Ex parte Young does not permit the Seminole Tribe of Florida to seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the future unconstitutional enforcement of Florida’s fuel tax scheme. The court’s holding turned on the fact that Florida precollects this tax from a third party, which means that an order barring future enforcement against the tribes might require the state to issue tribal consumers refunds “from state coffers,” supposedly in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. Pet. App. 12a.
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.
Federal Court Dismisses Gustafson v. Poitra Dispute (Again)
Here are the materials in Gustafson v. Poitra (D. N.D.):
An excerpt:
The Court notes the equities clearly favor the Gustafsons, and the Court is sympathetic to the jurisdictional dilemma they find themselves in. The juvenile behavior and attitude of the Poitras that triggered the need for the issuance of the TRO in October 2012 is difficult for any reasonable person to understand. However, the plaintiffs cannot use the Declaratory Judgment Act as a vehicle to resolve a multitude of long-standing disputes which neither raise a federal question nor bear any relationship to a lawsuit over which the Court would have jurisdiction.
We have posted on the multiple suits in this long-running dispute here, here, and here.
Friends of Amador County v. Jewell Cert Petition
Here:
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.
News Coverage of Justice Sotomoyor’s Visit to Oklahoma Indian Country
Here is Tony Mauro’s “Arm in a Cast, Sotomayor Tours Oklahoma and Meets Tribal Leaders.”
An excerpt:
At an appearance on Sept. 11, Oklahoma City University president Robert Henry—formerly chief judge of the Tenth Circuit—asked Sotomayor to discuss her meeting earlier that day with “some of our native people.” Henry said, “I so much appreciated” that she met with tribal members. Neither Henry nor Sotomayor gave details about where the meeting took place or how it was arranged.
Sotomayor heard about broken agreements between tribes and the U.S. government. “There are so many misunderstandings about Native Americans,” she said, producing resentments that “run deep… It still stings.” She added, “There is a basis for that feeling.”
The Oklahoma tribes, she said, are “all displaced tribes—all wrenched from their homes in different states” and sent to Oklahoma in the “Trail of Tears,” an exodus in the 1830s in which Supreme Court rulings played a part.
Sotomayor also said the public has a misperception that tribes are rich because of the advent of casinos at many reservations. That is not the case, she said. “They have problems like the larger society,” she asserted, including obesity and diabetes. Sotomayor noted she has diabetes herself.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.