Here is the order:
The case is State v. Clark, and the briefs are here.
Washington Supreme Court
Split Washington SCT Holds Tribes are Not Indispensable to Private Challenge to State-Tribal Tax Compacts
Here is the majority:
And the dissent:
And links to all the briefs:
85661-3 – Automotive United Trades Organization v. State of Washington et al.
Hearing Date – 01/12/2012
- Amici of a G C W, Et Al
- Amicus of a W B
- Amicus of Nfib, Et Al
- Amicus of W O M a
- Amicus of W P C
- Appellant Brief
- Auto’s Answer to Amici of Nfib, Et Al
- Reply
- Respondent Brief
- Respondent’s Answer to Amici Briefs
- Motion to Expand Record
- Reply in Support of Motion to Expand Record
- Response to Motion to Expand Record
- Statement of Additional Auth
Washington SCT Holds that State Has No Jurisdiction over Off-Rez
Washington SCT Decides Five Corners Family Farmers v. State — Groundwater Allocation Case
Here is the majority and here is the dissent.
Here is the tribal amicus brief.
Washington Supreme Court Finds State Has Jurisdiction in Washington v. Comenout
Previous materials here.
Opinion here.
ALEXANDER, J.—The primary issue presented by this case is whether the State of Washington has jurisdiction over members of Indian tribes who sell unstamped cigarettes without a license at a store that is located on trust allotment land that is outside the boundaries of an Indian reservation. We conclude that the State does possess jurisdiction in such cases, and, thus, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion of the defendants herein to dismiss the charges against them.
Anthony Broadman on AUTO v. Washington
Here.
Washington Supreme Court Agrees to Review Constitutional Challenge to State-Tribal Tax Agreements
Here is the news article, via Pechanga.
And the materials so far:
Wash SCT Accepting Direct Review
Lower court materials:
Washington SCT (On Reconsideration) Holds 5-4 that Tribal Law Enforcement Authority Stops at Rez Boundaries
The majority opinion is here, and the two dissenting opinions are here and here. The majority holds (reversing itself from opinions in 2009 and 2010) that a criminal suspect (here a reckless driver) is utterly free and clear from tribal jurisdiction once the suspect leaves the reservation. Tribal police cannot even hold the suspect until state officials arrive.
One of the dissents raises an interesting point. This outcome strongly encourages anyone — even tribal members — from making a crazy, reckless beeline for the reservation boundary.
Our first posting on this case (with links to briefs) is here. Here are the previous opinions:
First it was 9-0, then 6-3, and now 5-4 the other way. What happened?
State Supreme Court Outcomes: Washington
Due to popular demand, Washington is up next. [Lemme know if anyone objects to the W/L characterizations below. Some cases are a little difficult to figure.]
In Washington, tribal interest win 47 percent of cases
Here are the cases:
Vacancy on Washington Supreme Court
Here is the notice:
Notice of Judicial Vacancy Supreme Court May 2011[1]
Hopefully, Indian country will respond.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.