Here: Tribal Amicus Brief in T.O.N.
United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation
Tohono O’odham Nation Merits Brief
Here: TON Respondents Brief.
The government’s brief is here.
Top Side Briefing in U.S. v. Tohono O’odham Nation
Supreme Court Grants Cert in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation
This morning, the Supreme Court agreed to decide United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation (No. 09-846). The Court denied cert. in the Wolfchild/Zephier petitions. Here is the order list.
Here are the questions presented in Tohono O’odham (and the petition):
Under 28 U.S.C. 1500, the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) does not have jurisdiction over “any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff *** has *** any suit or process against the United States” or its agents “pending in any other court.” The question presented is:
Whether 28 U.S.C. 1500 deprives the CFC of jurisdiction over a claim seeking monetary relief for the government’s alleged violation of fiduciary obligations if the plaintiff has another suit pending in federal district court based on substantially the same operative facts, especially when the plaintiff seeks monetary relief or other overlapping relief in the two suits.
Two Indian Law Cases are “Petitions to Watch”
Keep an eye out for Monday’s announcement of new orders in pending petitions, and expect at least one Indian law case to be granted. My money’s on the Tohono O’odham case.
From SCOTUS Blog:
Title: United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation
Docket: 09-846
Issue: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1500 — which precludes jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) over ”any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff has any suit or process against the United States” or its agents “pending in any other court” – deprives the CFC of jurisdiction over a claim seeking monetary relief for the government’s alleged violation of fiduciary obligations if the plaintiff has another suit pending in federal district court based on substantially the same operative facts, especially when the plaintiff seeks monetary relief or other overlapping relief in the two suits.
- Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
Title: Wolfchild v. United States; Zephier v. United States
Docket: 09-579; 09-580
Issues: (1) Whether federal court subject matter jurisdiction exists over Native American beneficiary claims of purported federal government violations of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act or other applicable federal statutes when post-1934 IRA non-tribal community governments are involved; (2) whether the Federal Circuit’s holding of “statutory use restrictions” in congressional appropriation acts establishing statutory obligations on the United States, but no “trust,” departs from applicable statutory interpretation and trust principles; and (3) whether the Federal Circuit’s holding that a 1980 Congressional Act terminated a trust was impermissible given that the court failed to consider the 1934 IRA’s extension of all Native American trusts under 25 U.S.C. § 462 and failed to apply the “clear and unambiguous requirement” for a trust termination act.
- Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (09-579)
- Petition for certiorari (09-580)
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioners’ reply (09-579)
- Amicus brief of the Historic Shingle Springs Miwok
- Amicus brief of the Oglala Sioux Tribe
Tohono O’odham Nation Cert Opposition
In United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation (No. 09-846) … here: TON Cert Opp
The cert petition and questions presented are here.
Fully expect this to show up in the SCOTUSblog petitions to watch in a few weeks.
United States Files Cert Petition in Supreme Court re: Procedure in Indian Trust Cases
Here is the petition: United States v Tohono O’odham Nation Cert Petition.
Suffice it to say that the chances of this petition being granted are pretty good — about two-thirds (or more) of all of the United States’ cert petitions are granted.
Here are the questions presented:
Under 28 U.S.C. 1500, the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) does not have jurisdiction over “any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff *** has *** any suit or process against the United States” or its agents “pending in any other court.” The question presented is:
Whether 28 U.S.C. 1500 deprives the CFC of jurisdiction over a claim seeking monetary relief for the government’s alleged violation of fiduciary obligations if the plaintiff has another suit pending in federal district court based on substantially the same operative facts, especially when the plaintiff seeks monetary relief or other overlapping relief in the two suits.
Here are the lower court materials. And a decision in a similar case.
Turtle Talk 