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.
Here is the order and materials:
SCIT Amended Motion to Expedite
You may recall this matter is on remand from the Sixth Circuit.
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.
Here is today’s order list.
The Court denied cert in Dupris v. Procter and Hicks v. Hudson Insurance.
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.
Here is today’s order from the Supreme Court. The Court granted cert in several cases, none concerning Indian law.
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.