|
|
2009-2010 Supreme Court Term: October 2009 - July 2010
Last Updated: November 19, 2009
Next update will be: when new information is discovered
Covering: Supreme Court cases from the 2009 term impacting Native Americans
Please alert us
to any cases we may have missed from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Currently, no Native American law cases have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2009-2010 term.
Back to Top
Currently,
no Native American law cases are pending after being granted review in
the 2009-2010 term.
Back to Top
Currently, seven petitions for writ of certiorari are pending in the 2009-2010 term.
Harvest Institute Freedman Federation v. United States
Briefs & Pleadings
Docket No. 09-585
Subjects: Trustee, Statute of Limitations
*Issues: (from the order) Judgment
PER CURIAM.
This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
AFFIRMED.
History: Petition was filed on 11/10/09.
*Holding below: (from Westlaw) Harvest Institute Freedman Federation v. United States, 2009 WL 1336710
Zephier v. United States
Briefs & Pleadings
Docket No. 09-580
Subjects: not yet available
*Issues: (from the petition) 1. Whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals erred in failing to recognize the existence of a trust corpus in property and beneficiary rights for and on behalf of the lineal descendants of the Loyal Mdewakantons, from the March 3, 1863 Act and that the existing trust corpus was intended to be implemented and enhanced by the subsequent legislation found in the Appropriations Acts of 1888, 1889, 1890 and 1980.
2. Whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals erred in not applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel as set forth in New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) and thus allowed the United States to argue the existence of a trust and obtain a favorable result in the Eighth Circuit, Cermak v. United States, 478 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2007) and to argue the lack of a trust and obtain a favorable result in the Federal Circuit, Wolfchild v. United States, 559 F.3d 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2009), thereby creating a split in the Circuits.
History: Petition was filed on 11/06/09.
*Holding below: (from Westlaw) Wolfchild v. United States, 559 F.3d. 1228, The Court of Appeals, Bryson, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) Appropriations Acts did not create trust for benefit of loyal Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants;
(2) Act that transferred United States' interest in land purchased with funds from Appropriations Acts terminated any trust relationship created by Appropriations Acts; and
(3) Congress's change in identity of beneficiaries of Indian trust lands did not constitute compensable taking.
Reversed and remanded.
Wolfchild v. United States
Briefs & Pleadings
Docket No. 09-579
Subjects: Fiduciary accountability -- United States; Trusts and trustees – Accounting; Breach of trust -- United States; Mdewakanton Indians; Jurisdiction -- United States; United States. Court of Federal Claims.
*Issues: not yet available
History: Petition was filed on 11/6/09.
*Holding below: (from Westlaw) Wolfchild v. United States, 559 F.3d. 1228, The Court of Appeals, Bryson, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) Appropriations Acts did not create trust for benefit of loyal Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants;
(2) Act that transferred United States' interest in land purchased with funds from Appropriations Acts terminated any trust relationship created by Appropriations Acts; and
(3) Congress's change in identity of beneficiaries of Indian trust lands did not constitute compensable taking.
Reversed and remanded.
Smith v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service
Briefs & Pleadings
Docket No. 09-512
Subjects: Jurisdiction; Taxation; Injunctions.
*Issues: not yet available
History: Petition for certiorari was filed on 10/28/09.
*Holding below: (from Westlaw) Smith v. Shulman, 2009 WL 1698109 , The Court of Appeals held that:
(1) Tax Court had exclusive jurisdiction over appeal of adverse decision of due process hearing officer, and
(2) taxpayer's attempt to obtain injunction was barred by Tax Anti-Injunction Act.
Affirmed.
Roy v. Minnesota
Briefs & Pleadings
Docket No. 09-436
Subjects: United States. Public Law 280; Firearms -- Law and legislation; Jurisdiction -- Minnesota; Criminal actions arising on Indian reservations -- Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa Indians.
*Issues: not yet available
History: Petition for certiorari was filed on 9/14/09.
*Holding below: (from Westlaw) State v. Roy, 761 N.W.2d 883, The Court of Appeals, Hudson, J., held that state had jurisdiction to prosecute defendant, a tribal member, for a violation on a reservation of the felon-in-possession statute.
Affirmed.
Pyke v. Cuomo
Docket No. 09-242
Subjects: Race discrimination -- New York (State); Discrimination in law enforcement -- New York (State); Equality before the law -- United States.
*Issues: (1) Must a summary judgment motion that turns on the adequacy of the plaintiffs' evidence of intentional discrimination be denied when a "plausible" inference of invidious intent can be drawn from all of the evidence, circumstantial and direct, taken as a whole? (2) Should the U.S. Supreme Court resolve a conflict among the circuits on the issue of what standards to apply in considering the strength of summary judgment evidence in cases of alleged intentional discrimination? (3) Did Congress's enactment of 25 U.S.C. § 232 obviate any distinctions based on geography or sovereignty regarding New York's duty to provide police protection to Native American residents of reservations within the state?
History: Petition for certiorari was filed on 8/25/09.
*Holding below: Pyke v. Cuomo, 567 F.3d 74. Equal protection claims by Native Americans, alleging that their rights were violated during unrest on their reservation by an inadequate and at times harmful response from state officials that contributed to millions of dollars in property damage and the deaths of two young tribal members, are rejected. The plaintiffs cite three policies that they allege involve express racial classification occurring during the strife: (i) state officials set up roadblocks at the edge of the reservation either to stop nonresidents from entering the reservation or to give them information about the ongoing strife, (ii) state officials informed the Warrior Society--a heavily armed organization allegedly responsible for criminal violence on the reservation--before police entered the reservation in response to calls, and (iii) state officials stopped regular patrols inside the reservation. None of these actions amounted to express racial classification. The roadblocks were not a racial classification because they were directed at an area, not a racial class. Warning the Warrior Society was also not a racial classification, but instead, was a way for the police to avoid a potentially violent standoff with the group, "and perhaps even show respect for the sovereignty of the Mohawks." The suspension of patrols was not a racial classification for similar reasons. Assuming without deciding that the plaintiffs have shown the existence of a discriminatory impact, they have failed to proffer enough evidence of discriminatory intent to survive summary judgment.
Benally v. United States
Briefs & Pleadings
Docket No. 09-5429
Subjects: Jury selection; United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs -- Police; Assault and battery; Evidence (Law); Impartiality.
*Issues: not yet available
History: Petition for certiorari was filed on 7/20/09.
*Holding below: United States v. Benally,
546 F.3d 1230 (from Westlaw) The Court of Appeals, McConnell, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) evidence that jurors expressed racial bias during deliberations fell within scope of evidence rule prohibiting admission of evidence of statements made during jury deliberations;
(2) jurors' alleged statements did not fall within scope of exception for extraneous prejudicial information; and
(3) defendant's Sixth Amendment right to impartial jury did not bar application of evidence rule.
Reversed.
Back to Top
Currently, 4 petitions
for writ of certiorari have been denied in
the 2009-2010 term.
Elliot v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court
Briefs & Pleadings
Docket No. 09-187
Subjects: Non-Indians; Law -- Tribes -- Application -- Non-members of a tribe; Civil actions arising on Indian reservations; Forest fires; Tribal courts; Jurisdiction -- Tribes; Exhaustion of tribal remedies; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona.
*Issues: Can a tribal court assert jurisdiction over a nonconsenting, non-Indian litigant and force her to defend against civil claims in that unfamiliar forum when it is plain that the tribal court has neither regulatory nor adjudicatory jurisdiction and when the conduct at issue by the non-Indian on tribal land does not and cannot ever threaten or directly affect the political integrity, economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe?
History: Petition for certiorari was filed on 8/11/09. Petition was denied on 11/16/09.
*Holding below: Elliot v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court, 566 F.3d 842 Tribal court jurisdiction over a Native American tribe's civil action against a non-Indian defendant is plausible in a case in which the tribe seeks civil penalties and an order of restitution from the defendant after the signal fire that she had set on tribal land to facilitate her rescue while she was lost grew into a substantial forest fire that caused extensive damage to the tribe's natural resources. Accordingly, under principles of comity, the federal courts must decline to entertain the non-Indian defendant's action for injunctive and declaratory relief against the tribe, a tribal judge, and a tribal court, challenging the tribal court's jurisdiction, until the non-Indian defendant has exhausted her tribal remedies.
Harjo v. Pro-Football
Briefs & Pleadings
Docket No. 09-326
Subjects: Trademarks
*Issues: Is the doctrine of laches applicable to a cancellation petition filed pursuant to Section 1064(3) of the Lanham Act despite the plain meaning of the statutory language stating that such a petition may be filed "at any time"?
History: Petition for certiorari was filed on 9/14/09. Petition was denied on 11/16/09.
*Holding below: Pro-Football v. Harjo, 565 F.3d 880, The district court did not abuse its discretion when it found both trial and economic prejudice sufficient to support a defense of laches to a lawsuit alleging that various trademarks related to the Washington Redskins football team disparage Native Americans within the meaning of the Lanham Act, and seeking cancellation of the marks. The period between the youngest plaintiff's reaching the age of majority, which triggers any period of unjustifiable delay in his filing suit, and the date on which the lawsuit was filed was seven years and nine months (the "delay period"), a delay made only more unreasonable by the plaintiff's acknowledged exposure to the various Redskins trademarks well before reaching his majority. The trial prejudice stems from both the death of former Redskins president Edward Bennett Williams, who had met with Native American leaders to discuss their views close to the time of the marks' registration in 1967, as well as the delay period's general contribution to the time lapse from the date of registration, both of which limited the team's ability to marshal evidence, including contemporaneous evidence of public attitudes, supporting its mark. The economic prejudice consists of a significant expansion of Redskins merchandising efforts and a sizable investment in the marks during the delay period.
Related News Stories: Supreme Court refuses to hear Redskins' naming case. (Washington Post) 11/16/09.
Barrett v. United States
Briefs & Pleadings
Docket No. 09-32
Subjects: Income tax -- Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma -- Members; United States. Internal Revenue Service; Tribal trust funds -- Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma -- Officials and employees -- Salaries.
*Issues: (1) Can an Indian tribe use Indians Claims Commission Act funds, appropriated by Congress and distributed to the tribe with a specific exemption from federal income tax, to pay federal income tax exempted salaries to elected officials the tribe is required to have under its tribal constitution? (2) Does the imposition of a penalty by the IRS against the tribal chairman for sovereign legislative actions of the tribe improperly infringe on the tribe's sovereign powers?
History: Petition for certiorari was filed on 7/06/09. Petition was denied on 10/13/09.
*Holding below: Barrett v. United States, 561 F.3d 1140. A federal district court's ruling that the salary paid to the chairman of a federally recognized tribe of American Indians was not exempt from federal income tax is affirmed, along with the consequent grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States in the chairman's suit seeking a refund of federal income taxes, penalties, and interest that he paid in accordance with an Internal Revenue Service assessment. The tribal chairman's contention that his compensation was not taxable because the source of the funds used to pay him was earnings on tribal trust funds, previously awarded to the tribe by the Indian Claims Commission, that are tax exempt as "development" expenses, is without merit, given that the chairman's compensation for the oversight of day-to-day operations cannot be said to fall into the definition of that term in the use and distribution plan developed by the tribe and the secretary of the interior for those funds: "those activities and/or actions undertaken by the Tribe to in some way cause growth, building up, expansion, strengthening, increased effectiveness or other evolutionary process toward the progress of the Tribe economically and/or socially, and/or governmentally." In addition, even if the chairman's compensation satisfied the intended-use criteria of the trust fund earnings, the tax exemption reference in the use and distribution plan is not sufficiently specific to exempt the chairman's salary from federal taxation. The record also supports the 20 percent accuracy-related penalty imposed on the taxpayer under I.R.C. § 6662 on the portion of underpayment of tax attributable to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, because the taxpayer's determination that the salary he received as chairman of the tribe was tax-exempt was not reasonable in light of his experience, knowledge, and education.
Hendrix v. Coffey
Docket No. 08-1306
Subjects: Disenrollment; Tribal membership disputes; Jurisdiction.
*Issues: Did lower courts wrongly deny petitioners opportunity to attack their disenrollment as violation of due process and equal protection?
History: Petition for certiorari was denied on 10/05/09.
*Holding below: Hendrix v. Coffey, 305 Fed. Appx. 495. Claims relating to disenrollment from membership in Native American tribe are matters of internal tribal concern, and thus were properly dismissed by district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Back to Top
* "Issues" and
"Holding below" reproduced with permission from The United States
Law Week on the Internet and print at: http://www.bna.com.
Copyright 2000-2008 by The Bureau of National
Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033).
Back
to Top
|
