See the Tribal Supreme Court Project website for pending and denied cases. When certiorari is granted, the case information will be posted here.
Last Reviewed: July 8, 2026
July 23, 2026:
One petition for certiorari was filed 7/7/26:
July 8, 2026:
Two petitions for certiorari were granted 6/29/26:
One petition for certiorari was filed 6/26/26:
July 1, 2026:
One petition for certiorari was filed 6/9/26:
June 10, 2026:
One petition for certiorari was denied 6/8/26:
May 20, 2026:
One petition for certiorari was granted, vacated and remanded 5/18/26:
One petition for certiorari was filed 5/4/26:
April 29, 2026:
The Tribal Supreme Court Project published an Update Memorandum on April 23, 2026.
April 22, 2026:
One petition for certiorari was filed 4/8/26:
Petersen v. Mi Familia Vota
Docket No. 25-1019
Documents on TSCP website
Subject Matter: National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)
Question Presented: Arizona’s state voter registration form requires applicants to provide proof of citizenship and proof of residence. Registrants who have not provided proof of citizenship may not vote by mail. The district court found that the mail-in voting restriction and the proof of citizenship and residence requirements for the state form are preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and, in the case of citizenship, by a consent decree. This Court stayed the district court’s injunction against the proof of citizenship requirement. A divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the injunction. It also reversed the district court’s conclusion that H.B. 2243, a related law that requires elections officials to check various databases to identify non-citizen or non-resident voters, was not intentionally discriminatory. Over 11 dissents, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the NVRA or a prior consent decree precludes Arizona from requiring documentary proof of citizenship and residence when applicants use its state-specific form to register to vote in federal elections. 2. Whether the NVRA preempts Arizona’s prohibition on mail-in voting by registrants who have not provided proof of citizenship. 3. Whether the district court clearly erred in concluding that H.B. 2243 was not motivated by discriminatory animus.
History: Petition for a writ of certiorari filed 2/19/26.
Rulings Below: Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, 129 F.4th 691 (9th Cir. 2025); Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, 719 F. Supp. 3d 929 (D. Ariz. 2024).
Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota
Docket No. 25-1017
Documents on TSCP website
Subject Matter: National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)
Question Presented: Like every other State, Arizona permits only United States citizens to vote in federal elections. To enforce that qualification, Arizona requires every applicant who registers to vote to produce “satisfactory evidence of citizenship.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16-121.01(C). If election officials obtain “information” from periodic inspections of Arizona’s voter rolls that “confirms” a “person registered is not a United States citizen,” they “cancel the registration.” Id. §16-165(A)(10). The Ninth Circuit held that the National Voter Registration Act—52 U.S.C. §§20506(a)(6)(A)(ii), 20508(b)(1), 20507(c)(2)(a)—preempts those provisions of Arizona law. It also held that Arizona cannot require voter-registration applicants to produce proof of citizenship because in 2018, a previous Arizona Secretary of State entered a consent decree with private litigants. This Court has granted an emergency stay on each issue: One in this case and one in a Fourth Circuit case. The RNC raises both questions here on the merits. The questions presented are: (1) Does the National Voter Registration Act or a federal consent decree prohibit Arizona from requiring voter-registration applicants to produce “satisfactory evidence” of U.S. citizenship when registering with a state registration form? (2) Does the National Voter Registration Act prohibit Arizona from implementing a program within 90 days of a federal election to cancel the registrations of voters who are not U.S. citizens?
History: Petition for a writ of certiorari filed on 2/19/26. Petition was granted 6/29/26.
Rulings Below: Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, 129 F.4th 691 (9th Cir. 2025); Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, 719 F. Supp. 3d 929 (D. Ariz. 2024).
Subject Matter: Voting Rights Act
Question Presented: Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, is enforceable by private plaintiffs through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an implied right of action, or both?
History: Petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on 9/2/25. Petition was granted, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Eighth Circuit on 5/18/26.
Rulings Below: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, 137 F.4th 710. Additional materials available via Turtle Talk. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, 2023 WL 8004576.
Visit the Archives for the Indian Law Bulletins to see cases from other years.
See also the website for the Tribal Supreme Court Project for additional case information related including update memos and case pleadings.
Indian Law Bulletins are a current awareness service of the National Indian Law Library. The purpose of the Indian Law Bulletins is to provide succinct and timely information about new developments in Indian Law. See the About page for more information.
A note about links used in this document
Blue links on this page go to information available for free on the internet. Green links go to information available on Westlaw which require a Westlaw account. The library is not affiliated with Thomson Reuters or Westlaw.
