Here is the opinion in Reavis v. Frost.
News coverage here.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Shirley.
Here is the petition:
1. Whether the Secretary of the Interior exceeded his statutory authority by taking land located within the reservation boundaries of one Indian Tribe and placing the land in trust for another Tribe, despite the objections of the first Tribe and in violation of a regulatory prohibition and the United States’ treaty promises to the first Tribe.
2. Whether the Court should hold this petition pending its disposition of Maine Community Health Options v. United States, No. 18-1023 (argued Dec. 10, 2019), because this case raises the same issue concerning implied repeals effected by appropriations laws and the proper standard for determining what law to apply.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion. An excerpt:
We recognize that in interpreting federal statutes in Indian affairs we “provide for a broad construction when the issue is whether Indian rights are reserved or established, and for a narrow construction when Indian rights are to be abrogated or limited.” Felter, 752 F.2d at 1512; see also F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 224–25 (1982). In Felter, we determined the hunting and fishing rights of the individuals were not abrogated because the statute did not clearly abrogate them—this is a narrowing construction. But we cannot also conclude that the Termination Act implicitly gave the Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe authority to exercise Ute tribal rights with respect to hunting and fishing, when the Act plainly established those rights within the Ute Tribe.