2021-2022 Term
Supreme Court Cases Related to Indian Law
Petitions for certiorari were granted in eighteen Indian law-related cases.
Petitions for certiorari were denied in eighty-nine Indian law-related cases.
Cert Granted
Questions Presented: Whether various provisions of ICWA--namely, the minimum standards of Section 1912(a), (d), (e), and (f); the placement-preference provisions of Section 1915(a) and (b); and the recordkeeping provisions of Sections 1915(e) and 1951(a)--violate the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. Whether the individual plantiffs have Article III standing to challenge ICWA's placement preferences for "other Indian families," 25 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), and for "Indian foster home[s]," 25 U.S.C. 1915(b)(iii). Whether Section 1915(a)(3) and (b)(iii) are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and therefore consistent with equal protection.
History: Petition was filed on 9/3/21. Petition was granted on 2/28/22. The petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 21-377, 21-378, and 21-380 have been consolidated, and future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 21-376.
Ruling Below: Brackeen v. Bernhardt. 937 F.3d 406.
History: Petition was granted on 2/28/22, and consolidated with Nos. 21-377 and 21-378. Future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 21-376.
History: Petition was granted on 2/28/22, and consolidated with Nos. 21-380 and 21-377. Future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 21-376.
History: Petition was granted on 2/28/22, and consolidated with Nos. 21-378 and 21-380. Future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 21-376.
Questions Presented: Is the Court of Indian Offenses of Ute Mountain Ute Agency a federal agency such that Merle Denezpi's conviction in that court barred his subsequent prosecution in a United States District Court for a crime arising out of the same incident?
History: Petition was filed on 3/26/21. Petition was granted on 10/18/21. Case was decided on 6/13/22.
Ruling Below: 979 F.3d 777. United States v. Denezpi.
Questions Presented: Whether the Restoration Act provides the Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities on its lands (including bingo), as set forth in the plain language of Section 107(b), the Act's legislative history, and this Court's holding in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), or whether the Fifth Circuit's decision affirming Ysleta I correctly subjects the Pueblo to all Texas gaming regulations.
History: Petition was filed on 10/9/20. Petition was granted on 10/18/21. Case was decided on 6/15/22.
Ruling Below: 955 F.3d 408. State of Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/17/21. Petition was granted on 1/21/22. Case was decided on 6/29/22.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 12/22/21. Petition was granted on 6/30/22. Judgment vacated and and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 1/12/22. Petition was granted on 6/30/22. Judgment vacated and and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 11/20/21. Petition was granted on 6/30/22. Judgment vacated and and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/18/21. Petition was granted on 6/30/22. Judgment vacated and and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/24/21. Petition was granted on 6/30/22. Judgment vacated and and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 10/30/21. Petition was granted on 6/30/22. Judgment vacated and and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/21/21. Petition was granted on 6/30/22. Judgment vacated and and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 12/22/21. Petition was granted on 6/30/22. Judgment vacated and and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 12/15/21. Petition was granted on 6/30/22. Judgment vacated and and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
History: Petition was filed on 1/26/22. Petition was granted on 6/30/22. Judgment vacated and and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
Questions Presented: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/21/21.
Petition was granted on 6/30/22. Judgment vacated and and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
Back to Top
Cert Denied
Questions Presented: Do 43 U.S.C. § 1601(b) “decisions” settling individual Alaska Natives’ 14(c) reconveyance claims “with maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property” mean the same as 43 U.S.C. §1632(b) “[d]ecisions made by a Village Corporation to reconvey land under section 14(c)”, construed in harmony with, and not to thwart, the Fifth Amendment? . If Fifth Amendment process due to individual Alaska Natives with 14(c) reconveyance claims is “maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property”, does the Fifth Amendment restrain federal courts from barring, as untimely under 43 U.S.C. § 1632(b), an illegality affirmative defense and a compulsory recoupment counterclaim by individual Alaska Natives, challenging a Village
Corporation’s § 14(c) reconveyance decision denying “participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property”, as illegal and unconstitutional?
History: Petition was filed on 4/21/22. Petition was denied on 6/27/22.
Ruling Below: 2021 WL 5917595.
Questions Presented: Should this Court's "functional" approach to absolute immunity be discarded to allow absolute judicial immunity to bar claims against court employees for their administrative, ministerial, or conspiratorial conduct if that employee or their conduct in "intimately connected with" or "integral to" the judicial process?
History: Petition was filed on 3/14/22. Petition was denied on 6/21/22.
Ruling Below: Acres Bonusing, Inc. v. Marston. 17 F.4th 901.
Questions Presented: Whether federal plaintiffs seeking to challenge their non-federal prosecution on the basis of bad faith face a heightened pleading standard. Whether actions taken by the clerk of a non-federal court to impede review of a habeas petition obviate the petitioner’s need to further exhaust remedies in that court.
History: Petition was filed on 4/13/22. Petition was denied on 6/21/22.
Ruling Below: Adams v. Dodge. 2021 WL 458394.
Questions Presented: Whether a court can invalidate an agreement to have an arbitrator resolve questions of arbitrability (a "delegation clause") based on the court's interpretation of a separate choice-of-law provision. Whether sovereign immunity bars private plaintiffs from suing tribal government officials, in their official capacities, for alleged violations of state law.
History: Petition was filed on 2/14/22. Petition was dismissed on 5/18/22.
Ruling Below: 19 F.4th 324.
Questions Presented: 1. Do the federal regulations governing the leasing
of Indian lands preempt state and local governments
from taxing the leasehold interest conveyed by the
regulated leases?
2. Does the express preemption provision of the
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934—which prohibits
state taxes on “any interest in lands” that the
government “acquire[s] pursuant to this Act … in trust
for [an] Indian tribe or individual Indian”—apply
when the government acquires extended trust rights
pursuant to the Act?
History: Petition was filed on 3/22/22. Petition was denied on 5/16/22.
Ruling Below: 68 Cal.App.5th 692.
Questions Presented: Did the State of Oklahoma's refusal to provide the relief directed by this Court in Terry v. Oklahoma, 141 S. Ct. 191 (2020), rise to the level of a Constitutional violation requiring immediate and direct action by this Court? Does Oklahoma's application of the newly conceived 'procedural bar' espoused in State ex. rel. Wallace v. Matloff, 2021 OK CR 21, __ P.3d__, implicate the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws? Does Oklahoma's application of the newly conceived 'procedural bar' espoused in State ex. rel. Wallace v. Mattloff, 2021 OK CR 21, __ P.3d__, have the collateral consequence in creating a specific, separate, "suspect" class of citizens who are entirely comprised of Native American people?
History: Petition was filed on 12/22/21. Petition was denied on 5/16/22.
Questions Presented: Did the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals violate Mr. Stone's Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process by: a) affirming the district court's Denial of Mr. Stone's application for Post-Conviction relief even though Mr. Stone had shown prima facie evidence of his Indian status and the locale of the alleged Crime? b) affirming the district court's decision to deny Mr. Stone's application for Post-Conviction based on the erroneous legal analysis in State ex. rel. Mattloff v. Wallace, 2021 OK CR 21, __P.3d__? Whether Oklahoma courts may exercise criminal jurisdiction over a Choctaw Indian in violation of treaty provisions between the Choctaw Indians the United States? Does U.S. Constitution Art. 1, Section 8, deny criminal jurisdiction to any State absent a grant by Congress? Since the State of Oklahoma did not enact Public Law 83-280, how can the State exercise jurisdiction over Indian territory?
History: Petition was filed on 2/8/22. Petition was denied on 5/2/22.
Questions Presented: Can the State of Alaska by criminal
prosecution and threat of fine and incarceration
prohibit Alaska Native members of the Metlakatla
Indian Community and Tribe and the Tsimshian
Nation, who have vested broad off-reservation,
aboriginal, treaty, presidential proclamation, and
congressional legislature enacted, and granted,
fishing rights, from harvesting fish in their
traditional Pacific Ocean fishing waters, and Annette
Islands Reserve related waters, which fishing is
essential to their culture, heritage, and lifestyle, and
vital to the very purpose for which the Reserve was
established and dedicated, under the guise of
“conservation necessity” by criminally banning those
natives who are “un-permitted” i.e., do not have
State of Alaska “limited entry permits,” which permits are bought and sold for many tens of
thousands of dollars and well beyond the financial
resources and means of most natives, and which
permits were issued in a restricted and “qualifying
fashion” that discriminates against those Metlakatla
Natives?
2. Should this Court act as the United
States Supreme Court did on two (2) prior occasions
in Alaska Pacific Fisheries Company v. United
States, 248 U.S. 78, 39 S.Ct.40, 63 L.Ed. 138 (1918)
and Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 369 U.S.
45, 82 S.Ct. 552, 7 L.Ed. 262 (1962), to protect the
rights of the Tsimshian Nation members of the
Metlakatla Indian Community and Tribe as to the
Annette Islands Reserve, as to vested fishing rights
relating to the Reserve, or allow the State of Alaska
and the Alaska Supreme Court to abrogate and extinguish those aboriginal, treaty, presidential
proclamation, and congressional legislation and
grant rights [which abrogation involves native
fishing rights that evolve from the Russian Treaty of
Succession of 1867 (Alaska Acquisition Treaty) and
subsequent federal legislation including the Alaska
Statehood Act, (72 Stat. 339) Public Law 85-508, 85th
Congress, H.R. 7999, July 7, 1958, the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (“ANCSA,” 43 U.S.C. § 1601
et. seq.), and violation of the duties and obligations of
the State of Alaska thereunder], with devastating
impacts on the Metlakatlans and their thousands of
years of culture tradition and heritage under the
guise of the misapplied “conservation necessity
principle,” where said misapplication is
discriminatory against the Tsimshian Metlakatla
Tribe and natives such as John Albert Scudero, Jr. and there will be no real impact on the Alaska
limited entry fishing program or the fisheries of
Alaska if the natives’ vested rights are honored?
3. Can the State of Alaska by such
criminal prosecution abolish those Alaska Natives’
fishing rights when allowing the small number of
Metlakatlans to exercise their rights will in reality
have little impact on the State of Alaska Limited
Entry Fisheries Program, or salmon fisheries;
although such discriminatory ban and prohibition
and criminal prosecution abrogates and emasculates
those vested fishing rights and destroys the basic
purpose for which the Reserve was established by
presidential proclamation and congressional action,
as a reserve for the Alaska Natives to enjoy and
practice their historical and traditional fish
harvesting lifestyle, as opposed to an agrarian lifestyle which was and is not possible on the
Reserve; or does the State of Alaska have to honor
those vested rights of the Alaska Natives,
Metlakatlans, as the Courts have held as to vested
native fishing rights and allow them to fish on equal
footing and par with non-native fishers, merely
perhaps equally subject to true conservation
regulatory measures as to “manner and means,” and
“seasons” of harvest and not subject to a criminal
prosecution impressed discriminatory total ban on
un-permitted natives so exercising their vested
fishing rights?
History: Petition was filed on 1/19/22. Petition was denied on 4/25/22.
Ruling Below: Scudero v. State of Alaksa. 496 P.3d 381.
Questions Presented: Whether the federal courts have the constitutional authority to unilaterally abrogate all rights guaranteed to an Indian tribe under a treaty with the United States absent congressional action. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by applying issue preclusion to hold that Snoqualmie was not a party to the Treaty even though the Executive Branch expressly recognizes Snoqualmie as a Treaty party.
History: Petition was filed on 3/11/22. Petition was denied on 4/25/22.
Ruling Below: Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. State of Washington. 8 F.4th 853.
Questions Presented: Whether the Penobscot Indian Reservation includes only the uplands of the islands in the main stem of the Penobscot River or also includes the surrounding River, where the Penobscot have fished, hunted, and trapped since time immemorial.
History: Petition was filed on 12/3/21. Petition was denied on 4/18/22.
Ruling Below: Penobscot Nation v. Frey. 3 F.4th 484.
Questions Presented: Whether the Maine Indian Settlement Acts--consistent with this Court's precedents on statutory interpretation and the Indian canons of construction--codify the historical understanding of the Penobscot Nation, the United States, and the State that the Penobscot Reservation encompasses the Main Stem of the Penobscot River.
History: Petition was filed on 12/3/21. Petition was denied on 4/18/22.
Ruling Below: 3 F.4th 484. Penobscot Nation v. Frey.
Questions Presented: Whether, or in what circumstances, a court may override an Act of Congress adopting a boundary for an Indian reservation, and set its own boundary. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by holding--in conflict with the decisions of this Court, including a decision involving the very boundary at issue--that the Reservation encompasses the area at issue.
History: Petition was filed on 12/16/21. Petition was denied on 4/18/22.
Ruling Below: 1 F.4th 673.
Questions Presented: 1. Whether the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals committed prejudicial error in barring/blocking a Native American tribe from pursuing in rem / quiet title remedies on lands promised and granted to them by the USA from that tribe, but stolen by another tribe based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the non-justiciable political question doctrine. 2. Whether or not, the Court committed prejudicial error by blocking a native American tribe from pursuing an in rem/quiet title/stolen tribal lands case, on the basis of USA sovereign immunity tribal sovereign immunity. 3. Whether the waiver by the United States of America of its sovereign immunity over quiet title claims
impermissibly discriminates in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment against Native American tribes having quiet title claims that are barred by the Native American lands express exceptions set forth in 28 USC section 2409a.
4. Whether the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals committed prejudicial air in barring/blocking the
Indian tribes pursuit of Land title claims constitutes an impermissible denial of the right to access to
courts as guaranteed by the First Amendment right to petition the court government for redress of grievances.
History: Petition was filed on 1/14/22. Petition was denied on 3/28/22.
Ruling Below: Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians v. Cabellero. 2021 WL 4938130.
Questions Presented: Does the federal government government possess final decision-making authority over the management of water rights held in trust for an Indian tribe?
History: Petition was filed on 10/5/21. Petition was denied on 3/21/22.
Ruling Below: 991 F.3d 216. Hawkins v. Haaland.
Questions Presented: Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and tribal sovereign immunity deprived the lower courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe's claim, requiring dismissal on that ground under United States Supreme Court precedent including Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 1996). Whether, under United States Supreme Court precedent including Ruhgras AG v. Marathon Oil Co, 526 U.S. 574 (1999) and Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007), an issue preclusion dismissmal is a merits dismissal and excluded from the threshold grounds among which a federal court may choose to dismiss a case before establishing its subject-matter jurisdiction. Whether, under United States Supreme Court precedent including Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007), jurisdictional issues in this case were not "arduous" or "difficult to determine" because the lower courts could readily determine that they lacked jurisdiction, such that those courts committed to reversible error in bypassing determinator of their subject-matter jurisdiction and proceeding to dismiss the case instead with prejudice on issue preclusion grounds.
History: Petition was filed on 2/10/22. Petition was denied on 3/21/22.
Ruling Below: Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. State of Washington. 8 F.4th 853.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 12/4/21. Petition was denied on 3/21/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 12/22/21. Petition was denied 3/7/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 11/26/21. Petition was denied 2/28/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 11/20/21. Petition was denied on 2/28/22.
Questions Presented: Whether the 1855 Treaty of Detroit established a federal reservation for the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians?
History: Petition was filed on 11/19/21. Petition was denied on 2/28/22.
Ruling Below: 998 F.3d 269. Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Whitmer.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was announced.
History: Petition was filed on 12/20/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 1/6/22. Petition was denied 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was decided.
History: Petition was filed on 12/9/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 11/6/21. Petition was denied 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was announced. Can a state provide conflicted direct-appeal counsel and then bar a Petitioner from raising a jurisdictional claim for the first time in post-conviction proceedings after a petitioner's conviction becomes final?
History: Petition was filed on 12/15/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was announced.
History: Petition was filed on 11/22/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was announced.
History: Petition was filed on 12/6/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was announced. Is Oklahoma's decision in Matloff v. Wallace contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law which holds that subject-matter jurisdiction claims can be raised at any time? Does Oklahoma's decision in Matloff v. Wallace serve as an unconstitutional state procedural bar to Petitioner's jurisdictional challenge under McGirt v. Oklahoma?
History: Petition was filed on 11/23/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 11/12/21. Petition was 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was announced? Is Oklahoma's decision in Matloff v. Wallace contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law which holds that subject-matter jurisdiction claims can be raised at any time? Does Oklahoma's decision in Matloff v. Wallace serve as an unconstitutional state procedural bar to Petitioner's jurisdictional challenge under McGirt v. Oklahoma?
History: Petition was filed on 11/16/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was announced.
History: Petition was filed on 11/22/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was announced.
History: Petition was filed on 11/22/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was announced.
History: Petition was filed on 11/22/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether or not Matloff v. Wallace, 2021 OK CR 21 non-retroactivity decision conflicts with the holding in Sharp v. Murphy, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020) and McGirt v. Oklahoma 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)? Whether or not Matloff v. Wallace, 2021 OK CR 21 non-retroactivity decision conflicts with United States v. Dashney, 52 F.3d 298, 299 (10th Cir. 1995)? Whether or not 2021 OK CR 21 non-retroactivity decision conflicts with United States v. Johnson 102 S. Ct. 2579 (1982)?
History: Petition was filed on 11/19/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: Whether, under NEPA, an agency that carefully considers all criticisms of its environmental analysis must also "resolve" those criticisms to the court's satisfaction to justify a finding of no significant impact; and whether procedural error under NEPA per se warrants remand with vacatur.
History: Petition was filed on 9/20/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Ruling Below: 985 F.3d 1032. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Questions Presented: Whether an Indian tribe incorporated by federal charter under section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 5124) is an "Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior" authorized to bring suit under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1362. Whether the Indian Trader Statutes (25 U.S.C. Secs. 261-263) or the Bracker balancing test (see White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980)) preempts the State of California's regulation of intertribal cigarette sales, where an Indian tribe sells tribally manufactured cigarettes to Indian tribal buyers on their home reservations.
History: Petition was filed on 11/4/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Ruling Below: 1 F.4th 710. Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Bonta.
Questions Presented: Whether the immovable-property exception applies to tribal sovereign immunity.
History: Petition was filed on 9/27/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Ruling Below: 60 Cal.App.5th 209. Self v. Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria.
Questions Presented: Whether Respondent waived/forfeited any of its procedural defenses in McGirt's decision and Respondent is procedurally barred from asserting any of its previous procedural defenses that were available against Petitioner's subject matter jurisdiction claim in collateral post conviction proceedings when conviction was final? Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma announced a new vindicative replacement of substantive rule dictated by prior precedent made retroactive by Teague's exception to non-retroactivity? Which Respondent refused to apply retroactively as state post-conviction relief to cases final when McGirt was decided on July 9, 2020? Whether lack of tribes' voluntary consent to state's assumption of criminal jurisdiction and the attempted exercise of judicial power by respondent without tribe's consent is void?
History: Petition was filed on 11/23/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Questions Presented: The question presented is whether the Ninth Circuit--in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts--properly abrogated the long-settled and original understanding of a central treaty term, without any legal or factual basis for doing so, and while redefining the boundary of a major body of water to accommodate its novel treaty interpretation.
History: Petition was filed on 12/17/21. Petition was denied on 2/22/22.
Ruling Below: 849 Fed.Appx. 216.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/24/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 10/30/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/16/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/16/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/16/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/16/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/16/21.
Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/16/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/16/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/16/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/27/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/27/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/27/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/27/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/27/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/4/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/4/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/4/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/28/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/27/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/27/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/27/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/4/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/4/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/24/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/24/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 10/2/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/24/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 9/24/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 10/23/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 10/30/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 10/30/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 11/6/21. Petition was denied on 1/24/22.
Questions Presented: Whether Respondent waived/forfeited any of its procedural defenses in McGirt's decision and Respondent is procedurally barred from asserting any of its previous procedural defenses that were available against Petitioner's subject matter jurisdiction claim in collateral post conviction proceedings when conviction was final? Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma announced a new vindicative replacement of substantive rule dictated by prior precedent made retroactive by Teague's exception to non-retroactivity? Which Respondent refused to apply retroactively as state post-conviction relief to cases final when McGirt was decided on July 9, 2020? Whether lack of tribes' voluntary consent to state's assumption of criminal jurisdiction and the attempted exercise of judicial power by respondent without tribe's consent is void?
History: Petition was filed on 11/4/21. Petition was denied on 1/18/22.
Questions Presented: Did the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals violate Mr. Bentley's Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process by affirming the district court's Denial of Petitioners application for post-conviction relief by a) agreeing with the District Court to continue the evidentiary hearing without allowing Petitioner time to adequately prepare a defense, b) affirming the District Court's decision to not allow Petitioner time to obtain expert witnesses, and c) affirming the District Court's decision to not allow Petitioner ample time to obtain indident legal counsel that is knowledgeable in Indian and Federal law at a critical stage of proceedings? Did the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals violate the U.S. Const. Art. VI cl. 2 in concuring with the state regarding the diminishment of the Citizen Potawotami Nation (CPN) by: allowing the District Court to utilize the Act of 1891 to show when the CPN's boundaries were diminished without presenting the Act of Jan 2, 1975 in which Congress authorized the tribes to reconvey the tracts to the United States, to be held in trust for the tribes? Did the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals violcate the Organic Act of May 2, 1890 and the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906 by affirming the District Court's decision to not allow Petitioner ample time to obtain indigent legal counsel essentially impairing the rights of person or property pertaining to Indians?
History: Petition was filed on 11/10/21. Petition was denied on 1/18/22.
Questions Presented: Whether Respondent waived/forfeited any of its procedural defenses in McGirt's decision and Respondent is procedurally barred from asserting any of its previous procedural defenses that were available against Petitioner's subject matter jurisdiction claim in collateral post conviction proceedings when conviction was final? Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma announced a new vindicative replacement of substantive rule dictated by prior precedent made retroactive by Teague's exception to non-retroactivity? Which Respondent refused to apply retroactively as state post-conviction relief to cases final when McGirt was decided on July 9, 2020? Whether lack of tribes' voluntary consent to state's assumption of criminal jurisdiction and the attempted exercise of judicial power by respondent without tribe's consent is void?
History: Petition was filed on 10/12/21. Petition was denied on 1/10/22.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was announced.
History: Petition was filed on 9/27/21. Petition was denied on 1/10/22.
Questions Presented: Whether Connecticut impermissibly regulates or controls conduct beyond the boundaries of the State in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer's products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors doing no business in Connecticut and having no nexus with Connecticut. Whether Connecticut violates Due Process protections when it bans a manufacturer's products from being sold in the state, if the manufacturer fails to obtain and provide to Connecticut private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors relating to their distribution of products in jurisdictions other than Connecticut. Whether Connecticut violates the Supremacy Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer's products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors who conduct no business in Connecticut nor distribute the manufacturer's products to, or in, Connecticut.
History: Petition was filed on 8/23/21. Petition was denied on 1/10/22.
Ruling Below: Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, LTD. v. Boughton. 988 F.3d 114.
Questions Presented: Whether Respondent waived/forfeited any of its procedural defenses in McGirt's decision and Respondent is procedurally barred from asserting any of its previous procedural defenses that were available against Petitioner's subject matter jurisdiction claim in collateral post conviction proceedings when conviction was final? Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma announced a new vindicative replacement of substantive rule dictated by prior precedent made retroactive by Teague's exception to non-retroactivity? Which Respondent refused to apply retroactively as state post-conviction relief to cases final when McGirt was decided on July 9, 2020? Whether lack of tribes' voluntary consent to state's assumption of criminal jurisdiction and the attempted exercise of judicial power by respondent without tribe's consent is void?
History: Petition was filed on 10/13/21. Petition was denied on 1/10/22.
Questions Presented: 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. 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. Whether the Cayuga Nation's ancient reservation was disestablished.
History: Petition was filed on 11/17/21. Petition was denied on 1/10/22.
Ruling Below: 6 F.4th 361.
Questions Presented: Whether the Secretary can acquire land in trust on behalf of Indians whose federal supervision was terminated by Congress.
History: Petition was filed on 11/8/21. Petition was denied on 1/10/22.
Ruling Below: 994 F.3d 616.
Questions Presented: Whether the "interracial" nature of a minor offense in Indian Country is an element of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1152, rather than an affirmative defense, and thus must be both pled and proved by the prosecution. Whether the government must plead and prove the "interracial" nature of a minor offense in Indian Country to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1152.
History: Petition was filed on 10/4/21. Petition was denied on 1/10/22.
Ruling Below: 997 F.3d 292. United States v. Haggerty.
Questions Presented: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020), applies retroactively to convictions that were final when McGirt was announced.
History: Petition was filed on 11/22/21. Petition was dismissed (Rule 46) on 12/9/21.
Questions Presented: Whether respondent waived/forfeited any of its procedural defenses in McGirt's decision and respondent is procedurally barred from asserting any of its previous procedural defenses that were available against petitioner's subject matter jurisdiction claim in collateral post conviction proceedings when conviction was final? Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma announced a new vindicative replacement of substantive rule dictated by prior precedent made retroactive by Teague's exception to apply retroactively as state post conviction relief to cases final when McGirt was decided on July 9, 2020? Whether lack of Seminole Nations' voluntary consent to shared assumption of subject matter jurisdiction by respondents and attempted exercise of judicial power by respondents is void?
History: Petition was filed on 9/8/21. Petition was denied on 11/15/21.
Questions Presented: Whether the State's denial of the post-conviction relief lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the offense occurred in Indian Country and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1153 provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction and his conviction(s) are void AB INITIO. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020) WL 3848063 (DECIDED JULY 9, 2020) this issue anew in light of McGirt.
History: Petition was filed on 6/4/21. Petition was denied on 10/18/21.
Questions Presented: Whether the clear language of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the exclusive authority over federally recognized Indian Tribes granted to the Secretary of the Interior under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2, controls the determination of how the Miccosukee Tribe compensates its members for the use of their lands, to the exclusion of any other federal agency, including the Internal Revenue Service.
History: Petition was filed on 8/13/21. Petition was denied on 10/12/21.
Ruling Below: 990 F.3d 1296.
Questions Presented: Do 11 men and women have the right to change a will deemed valid by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) and by the State of North Carolina, resulting in that man's widow homeless? Is the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (ICRA) only limited to cases involving Habeas Corpus? Plaintiff-Petitioner exhausted tribal remedies before seeking a jury trial in Federal Court. The EBCI violated Petitioner's due process.
History: Petition was filed on 6/25/21. Petition was denied on 10/4/21.
Ruling Below: 845 Fed.Appx. 260.
Questions Presented: The question presented is whether the United States Court of Appeals and the United States Tax Court have given "due regards" to the treaty obligations of the United States by finding these treaties had no textual support for an exemption from federal income tax applicable to an enrolled Seneca member whose income is derived from the lands of the Seneca Nation.
History: Petition was filed on 3/31/21. Petition was denied on 10/4/21.
Ruling Below: 970 F.3d 148. Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Questions Presented: Whether, in 1994, Congress eliminated the distinction between "historic tribes" and "created tribes" and, thereby, eliminated the requirement that a tribe must have pre-existed the United States to have tribal immunity. Whether the JIV, which became a quarter-blood Indian group in 1996, is a federally recognized tribe, with tribal immunity, by virtue of the fact that it is still on the list of "Indian tribal entities" eligible to receive BIA services.
History: Petition was filed on 4/21/21. Petition was denied on 10/4/21.
Ruling Below: 974 F.3d 984. Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer.
Oklahoma v. Bosse
*Rule 46 Voluntary Dismissal
Questions Presented: Whether a State may impose procedural or equitable bars to postconviction relief on the claim that the State lacked prosecutorial authority because the crime of conviction occurred in Indian country. Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
History: Petition was filed on 8/6/21. Petition was dismissed on 9/10/21.
Ruling Below: 484 P.3d 286. Bosse v. State of Oklahoma.
Back to Top
