Here:
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Lower court materials here.
Question presented:
Does a court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction overcome the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity when the tribe has not waived immunity and Congress has not unequivocally abrogated it?
Here are the merit stage briefs:
States Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party
Cert stage briefs:
Lower court materials:
Here is the order in McKesson Corp. v. Hembree (N.D. Okla.):
An excerpt:
Oklahoma is among the states with the highest number of opioid prescriptions per one hundred people and has a high overdose death rate. Tribal communities have been tragically affected, as have other communities in Oklahoma. Numerous cities, counties and states throughout the country, including the state of Oklahoma, have filed lawsuits against various opioid manufactures, pharmaceutical distributors, and other businesses allegedly responsible for the proliferation of opioid drugs. This proceeding concerns a lawsuit by the Cherokee Nation against a number of opioid distributors and pharmacies. However, the question before the Court is not the merits of the Cherokee Nation’s lawsuit but rather the boundaries of tribal court jurisdiction. The Attorney General of the Cherokee Nation has filed suit not in state court but in the tribal district court of the Cherokee Nation. Do the tribal courts of the Cherokee Nation have jurisdiction over this particular action? The Court finds they do not.
Briefs here.
Here are the materials in Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Fryberg (W.D. Wash.):
Here is the order list from last Friday.
Here are the cert stage materials in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the amici curiae in the matter of Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe et al:
For Movants:
In Opposition:
Link: Case archive
Here is the brief from Lawrence Tribe, William Eskridge, Erwin Chemerinsky, Joe Singer, and David Orozco:
Here is the amicus brief filed in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Allergan Inc.:
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Does 25 U.S.C. § 357 authorize a condemnation action against a parcel of allotted land in which an Indian tribe has a fractional beneficial interest, especially where (a) the the tribe holds less than a majority interest, (b) the purpose of condemnation is to maintain a long-standing right-of-way for a public utility, and (c) the statute was not “passed for the benefit of dependent Indian tribes.” Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U.S. 78, 89 (1918)?
2. If 25 U.S.C. § 357 authorizes such a condemnation action, may the action move forward if the Indian tribe invokes sovereign immunity and cannot be joined as a party to the action?
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.