Opening Briefs in Baby Veronica Case

Here (thanks to NARF/NILL):

Opening Brief for Petitioners Adoptive Couple

Opening Brief for Respondent GAL Supporting Reversal

Supreme Court Asks for Views of Solicitor General in Oneida Reservation Case

Today’s order list here.

This is a probably a disappointment for the petitioners — it would be a major surprise if the SG recommends a grant.

The Horrific Story of Printing One’s Own Supreme Court Cert Petition

Funny story, with this serious coda:

In the end, I spent $200 on equipment, around $20 on gas, probably another $20 on electricity (since laser printing is very energy intensive), $300 on the official fee, $95 on fancy paper, $26 on binding, and $24 on postage. Then I sold the LaserJet 5000N for $175 and bought a LaserJet 9050dn (worth nearly $4,000) for $280. My total costs therefore came to about $790, of which $490 was spent preparing the booklets. (I won’t include the expense of Microsoft Word, Adobe InDesign, or the years spent acquiring desktop publishing skills because I already had all of those things, unlike the other ingredients in this crazy soup.) So I basically saved myself up to $1,410, or 75% of the quoted expense.

I also couldn’t help but to use the brief itself to make a point to the Court about their Rule. Despite the strong suggestion that one ask the Court to answer no more than three questions, I added a fourth to my Petition: “WHETHER, this Court’s Rules regarding document submission (e.g. Rule 33.1) and the various conflicting rules of lower courts serve the interests of justice in an age of instantaneous and costless information transmission over the internet.” It’s extremely doubtful that the Court will actually answer it.

Clearly, the Rule begs many questions. How can the Supreme Court reasonably expect people to file if they are not incredibly wealthy or already professional printers? Why are the dimensions required so unusual? Who cut their hand on a staple? How much does it cost the Court to process documents in this manner, and how much would using an electronic process save? And most fundamentally, if this abject nonsense is typical of the justice system at the highest levels, why do we place our trust in it at all?

Supreme Court Conference to Consider Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation Petition TODAY

Here, from SCOTUSblog, are the briefs.

We may know this afternoon if the Court grants the petition.

How about a little poll to gauge the likelihood of a grant?

Turtle Talk Presents … Random Brief Day

Not much going on, so how about a few random briefs?

Here’s a brief from the State of Arizona in the Arizona COA defending a decision to deny state unemployment benefits to a former Navajo Nation elected official who is unemployed after losing an election (Robbins v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Security):

Arizona Brief

And here’s a SCT cert petition from a North Carolina company alleging that the state’s ban on a form of gaming advertisements are violative of the First Amendment (Sandhill Amusements Inc. v. North Carolina):

Sandhill Cert Petition

Supreme Court to Hear Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl on April 16

Here, from SCOTUSblog.

NICWA to Host Webinar on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Time: 11 a.m. Pacific / 2 p.m. Eastern
Presenter: Adrian Smith, JD, MSW, NICWA government affairs associate

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear the case Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, a South Carolina adoption case involving the Indian Child Welfare Act. This high profile and emotionally charged case has garnered significant attention in the past year. Oral arguments are expected to occur in late April, and a decision announced shortly thereafter.

The National Indian Child Welfare Association will host a webinar for those interested in learning:

  • What are the background and facts of the case?
  • What are the questions before the U.S. Supreme Court?
  • What possible implications will this case have on Indian Country?
  • What is being done nationally in preparation for this hearing?

This free webinar is open to all. Register here.

Hat tip to NILL’s blog.

Andrew Cohen on SCT Voting Rights Case Amicus Briefs (and the Navajo Amicus Brief)

Here. An excerpt:

We tend to think of the mission of the Voting Rights Act as focusing exclusively upon the plight of black Americans. But the federal statute has been a grace note to Hispanic organizations and American Indians as well. National Latino groups filed a powerful brief with the justices. And the Navajo Nation filed an amicus brief in this case, and it is poignant for its reminder that while white Americans were discriminating against black Americans they also were discriminating against Native Americans. The Navajo Nation writes:

Indian people have endured a century of discrimination and overcome new obstacles each generation in order to exercise the right to vote in state and federal elections. Nowhere have these struggles been more prevalent than in the Section 5 covered jurisdictions of Apache, Navajo and Coconino Counties in Arizona the home of the Navajo Nation and Todd and Shannon Counties in South Dakota the home of the Rosebud and Oglala Sioux. The amici curiae file this brief to elucidate the importance that the Voting Rights Act and, in particular, Section 5 preclearance, has had in overcoming the purposeful efforts to disenfranchise Indian voters.

While passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 ended certain means of discrimination, Indians continued to be denied the right to vote through a variety of new strategies. As part of the 2006 reauthorization process, Congress obtained evidence that Indians continued to be disenfranchised by voting schemes, polling place discrimination and ineffective language assistance. The 2006 reauthorization was a legitimate Congressional response to the disenfranchisement. Protected by the Section 5 preclearance, voter registration and turnout have increased, but new challenges have arisen that require continued vigilance.

Complete Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation Cert Stage Briefs

Here:

11-12-12 Madison v. NY Oneida Cert Petition

New York Amicus Brief in Support of Petition

Oneida Indian Nation of New York  Brief in Opposition

Madison County Cert Stage Reply Brief