Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Miccosukee and Yankton Cert Petitions are Petitions to Watch (SCOTUSblog)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here. Here are the Miccosukee materials:

Title: Miccosukee Tribe v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Co.
Docket: 10-717
Issue(s): Whether an action to obtain recognition of an Indian tribal court judgment presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

And here are the Yankton materials:

Continue reading →

South Dakota Cert Opposition Brief in Yankton v. Army Corps Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

South Dakota Response to Yankton v Army Corps Cert Petition

This is the petition that the OSG recommended be held in abeyance pending the Court’s decision on whether to grant cert in the Hein/Daugaard/South Dakota/etc. v. Yankton cases.

US Cert Opp in Yankton Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

US Cert Opp in Army Corps Case

The cert petition is here.

South Dakota Cert Petitions in Yankton Sioux Reservation Diminishment Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here they are:

Daugaard Cert Petition

So. Missouri Recycling and Waste Mgmt. Dist. Cert Petition

Charles Mix County Cert Petition

Lower court materials are here and here.

Yankton Sioux Decision in Light of Podhradsky

Kate Fort1 Comment

The 8th Circuit opinion in Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is here. The opinion in Podhrasky is here.

Because this appeal was briefed and argued with the cross appeals pending in Podhradsky, the parties have understandably reiterated their core positions in that case, namely, the Tribe’s contention that the Reservation was diminished only by the sales of surplus lands ceded by the 1894 Act (as the Supreme Court held in Yankton Sioux Tribe ), and the State’s contrary contention that the Reservation was altogether disestablished by the 1894 Act. We rejected those contentions in Podhradsky. That decision is final (subject only to further review by this court or the Supreme Court) and binding on our panel. Therefore, we will discuss in this opinion only those issues raised by the Tribe that were not presented to and decided by the court in Podhradsky.