Lower court materials here.
Last one for the day!
Still on category 4, groups.
# 2 Tribal Supreme Court Project
They’ve need a win, and Bay Mills was a biggie! While they were unable to persuade SCOTUS not to take the case in the first (even the SG failed there), and they were unable to persuade the tribe not to bring this case in the first place, but that said, they did help tribal interests avoid problems in a lot of other cases (here, here, here, here, and here). Actually, I have no idea if they helped or not but we’ll give them some credit anyway.
# 15 Tribal Law and Policy Institute
Always been a big fan of Jerry Gardner and his crew. One of the funniest men around. Did amazing work on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence Report this year.
#7 Native American Bar Association
NABA will be releasing a report arising out of a survey that over 500 Indian lawyers completed this year, so maybe this posting is a year early.
#10 Tribal In-House Counsel Association
#3 Authors of law review articles on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
#14 Authors of law review articles on Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community
# 6 Carcieri challengers
The people, groups, tribes, and states and state subdivisions that want to use a poorly-reasoned Supreme Court decision to stop Indian gaming at all costs are legion. Samples here, here, here, here, here, here, and elsewhere (just type Carcieri into TT’s search engine). Interior has opined about it here.
# 11 Tribal sovereign lenders
Here is the opinion:
From the court’s syllabus:
Plaintiffs‐appellants (“plaintiffs”) appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard J. Sullivan, Judge). Plaintiffs are two Native American tribes, tribal regulatory agencies, and companies owned by the tribes that offered high interest, short‐term loans over the internet. The interest rates on the loans exceeded caps imposed by New York State law. When the New York State Department of Financial Services sought to bar out‐of‐state lenders from extending such loans to New York residents, the plaintiffs sued for a preliminary injunction, claiming that New York’s ban violated the Indian Commerce Clause. But plaintiffs bore the burden of proving that the challenged transactions fell within their regulatory domain, and the District Court held that they failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to find in their favor. Because this conclusion was a reasonable one, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction.
Here is a new class action filed in California, Labajo v. First International Bank & Trust (C.D. Cal.), alleging involvement by Miami Tribe and Santee Sioux:
And another First International-related suit, Graham v. BMO Harris Bank NA (D. Conn.):
Here are the materials in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Great Plains Lending LLC, Mobiloans LLC, and Plain Green LLC (C.D. Cal.):
Here are the updated materials in Federal Trade Commission v. AMG (D. Nev.):