Supreme Court – Page 92

National Law Journal Appellate Lawyer of the Week — Chrissi Ross Nimmo

April 15, 2013April 15, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

An excerpt (the full article text is available on the Cherokee Nation website):

Nimmo was born in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the capital of Cherokee Nation. She was raised in Warner, Oklahoma, which, she likes to say, is probably the only town in the country with a college and no stoplight. “It’s that small,” she said. She has a master’s in business administration from Northeastern State University in Tahlequah and a law degree from the University of Tulsa College of Law.

The Cherokee Nation’s attorney general’s office is midsized “by Oklahoma standards,” 10 attorneys. Nine are tribal citizens and one is an “honorary” Cherokee. They are prosecutors in Cherokee court and in-house counsel to Cherokee Nation by advising its departments, handling contracts and appeals before administrative boards, among other duties.

Nimmo joined the attorney general’s office right out of law school in 2008. “I was in the top five percent of my class and did some internships at some big law firms in Tulsa,” she recalled. “I quickly realized that was not what I wanted to do when I graduated. Part of it was I wanted to be in a courtroom. I also didn’t want to do solo. This is a great place to work. As an attorney, I’m salaried and don’t do billable hours. Why would you ever leave that?

“Indian law is a tight knit group of attorneys. Whether you work in-house for a tribe or represent a tribe, every Indian law decision in an appellate court can affect all tribes.”

Miller v. Wright Cert Petition

April 15, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Miller v Wright Cert Petition

Questions presented:

The questions presented in this case are:

1. Whether Indian tribal immunity from suit allows the Indian tribe, a price fixing competitor, to be immune from federal anti-trust laws?

2. Whether the officials of an Indian tribe, acting beyond their authority, can be protected by tribal immunity when prospective relief is sought?

Lower court materials here.

Native America Calling: The Battle for Baby Veronica (feat. Kate Fort)

April 10, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 – The Battle for Baby Veronica (listen)
The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl next week. The case could have long term effects on future adoptions of Native children. The child, a member of the Cherokee Nation, was given up for adoption by her non-Native mother without the consent of the father. At the heart of the Supreme Court case is the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which regulates adoptions of Native children outside of their tribe. We’re taking a closer look at this case and what it means for Native America. How might the outcome of the case impact families or tribes? What’s the role of tribes in the adoption process? Guests include Chrissi Nimmo (Cherokee) Assistant Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation.

Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations SCT Amicus Brief in Tarrant Regional Water District v. Hermann

April 9, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Chickasaw and Choctaw Amicus in 11-889

The SCOTUSblog page on this case is here.

More News Coverage of Ward Churchill Case

April 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Ward Churchill Case

April 1, 2013April 1, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Petition here.

News coverage here and here.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/Cherokee Nation Oral Argument Time Splits

April 1, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

From today’s SCT order:

Upon consideration of the motions for leave participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and the motions for divided argument, the time is to be divided as follows: 20 minutes for petitioners, 10 minutes for respondent Guardian ad Litem, 20 minutes for respondent Birth Father, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.

Presumably that means:

20 minutes for petitioners — Lisa Blatt

10 minutes for respondent Guardian ad Litem — Paul Clement

20 minutes for respondent Birth Father — Charles Rothfield

10 minutes for the Solicitor General.

Another monster Indian law argument before the Supremes.

Turtle Talk Guide to the Amici Supporting Respondents in Baby Veronica Case (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl)

March 29, 2013March 29, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Indian tribes, individuals, law clinics, bar associations, and other entities inundated the Supreme Court with amicus briefs in the Baby Veronica case. Here is our guide to the amici (we’ve highlighted the must-read briefs in red):

The United States:

Here.

As always, the most important brief.

The State AGs Brief:

12-399 bsac Arizona et al

12-399 bsac MN DHS

The AGs’ brief may also be the most important amicus brief, in that 18 state attorneys general signed on to a brief drafted and distributed by the Arizona AG. No state AG filed an amicus brief supporting petitioners. While the contents of the brief are important (they attack the existing Indian family exception (EIF) and provide a defense against the federalism attack on ICWA), the mere fact of the brief is very powerful. The Minnesota DHS brief is along the same lines.

The Strategic Briefs:

12-399 bsac Association on American Indian Affairs (aka the NCAI brief)

12-399 Professors of Indian Law Amicus (the legal history brief)

12-399 bsac Seminole Tribe of Florida et al (the constitutionality brief)

These three briefs form the cornerstone of the amicus strategy. As usual, the NCAI brief offers greater national context for the dispute in issue, offering legislative history and even some sociological history. The law profs brief, IMHO the best law profs brief ever filed in the Indian cases before the Supreme Court, is the legal history of ICWA, written by one of the very best legal historians out there, Stuart Banner, former SOC clerk. The constitutionality brief defends against the farthest-reaching attacks of some of the petitioners, that ICWA is unconstitutional. It focuses on the doctrine we call the political status doctrine, first articulated by the Supreme Court in Morton v. Mancari.

Briefs Authored by Supreme Court Specialists:

12-399 bsac CaseyFamilyPrograms (Patricia Millett)

12-399 bsac CurrentandFormerMembersofCongress (Kathleen Sullivan)

12-399 bsac Adult Pre-ICWA Indian Adoptees (Ed DuMont)

It’s unfair to characterize these briefs solely as briefs authored by Supreme Court specialists, but names mean a great deal to clerks when slogging through a very large pile of amicus briefs. The Millett brief may be critically important, given that so many adoption and children’s organizations signed on, responding in force to the petitioners’ adoption policy positions.

Social Science Brief:

12-399 bsac Nat’l Lat Psych Assoc

I guess the closest thing we have to a Brandeis brief in this case. Could be critical, especially since the social science that persuaded Congress to adopt ICWA in 1978 has not aged all that well. Also, it responds directly to the junk science on attachment theory Mark Fiddler keeps pitching. Continue reading →