Tanner v. Cayuga Nation Cert Petition



Questions presented:

1. In view of Sherrill, whether New York tribes exercise “concurrent” jurisdiction over fee lands within the plenary taxing and regulatory authority of the state and local governments, thereby enabling those tribes to engage in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and cause the same or greater disruptions of settled expectations condemned by this Court in Sherrill.

2. Whether fee lands under plenary state and local taxation and regulation (per Sherrill) constitute “Indian lands” under IGRA because those lands are located within the Cayugas’ historic reservation.

3. Whether the Cayuga Nation’s ancient reservation was disestablished. 

Lower court materials here.

California COA Decides Acres v. Marston

Here is the opinion:


Keep in mind as to this case and the related Ninth Circuit case we posted a while ago here, this is about a nonmember sued by a tribe in tribal court for breach of contract, a nonmember who won before the tribal court, and now is suing the tribal judges, tribal employees, and the lawyers for the tribe for racketeering because the nonmember believes there was a conspiracy against him. The only reason this case exists is because of the Lewis v. Clarke decision (preceded by Ninth Circuit cases) that holds individuals who work for tribes sued in their individual capacities are not immune. Even if the nonmember’s claim here has validity (seems very unlikely but who knows?), this case is definitive proof that the Lewis v. Clarke precedent will allow absolutely frivolous contract and other claims to proceed against tribes on the Lewis v. Clarke fiction that tribal employees sued in their individual capacity are somehow not engaged in tribal governmental activity and that the tribes that indemnify their employees are doing so for reasons unrelated to tribal governmental prerogatives. Here, we’re talking tribal judges (including an associate judge who was not assigned the case), a court clerk, and lawyers retained by the tribe to merely serve as counsel for the tribe, among others. They might all win below, as the court here suggests, but they have to make the correct arguments in what appears to be a game of whack-a-mole.

Federal Court Dismisses Fort Peck Tribe from Suit over Wildfire at Turtle Mound Buffalo Ranch 

Here are the materials in Treasure v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (D. Mont.):

1 Complaint

11 Fort Peck Tribe Motion to Dismiss

18 Response

19 Reply

35 DCT Order

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage materials.

Self v. Cher-Ae Heights Indian Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria [immovable property exception]


Cert Petition

Lower court materials here.

California COA Dismisses Coyote Valley Band Appeals under Disentitlement Doctrine

Here are the materials in Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians:

A156459 [opinion]

Findleton Brief A156459

Findleton Brief A158171 A158172 A158173

Tribe Brief A156459

Tribe Brief A158171 A158172 A158173

Tribe Brief A159823

Tribe Reply A156459

Tribe Reply A158171 A158172 A158173

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Oglala Sioux Tribe Election

Here are the materials in Whalen v. Oglala Sioux Tribe Executive Officers (D.S.D.):

1 Complaint

8 Oglala Tribal Council Motion to Dismiss

9 Oglala Election Board Motion to Dismiss

12 Response

13 Council Reply

15 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Energy Company’s Collateral Attack on Tribal Court over Contract Breach

Here is the order in Evans Energy Partners LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida Inc. (M.D. Fla.):

42 DCT Order

Briefs here.