Supreme Court docket shaping up
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2003
The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a number of controversial topics
as it wraps up its annual term. Decisions
on affirmative
action, gay rights and Internet pornography laws are
heavily anticipated before the justices go into recess at the end
of this month.
There won't be any Indian law decisions among the bunch. But there
are some cases the justices are being asked to consider in
the coming months on topics like land claims, treaty rights
and taxation. Here's a review of some of the cases pending
before the court.
Environmental Rights
A battle between the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida and state water managers
has been in limbo for more than a year. The tribe won a decision
at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, requiring the state to comply
with federal clean water laws when pumping water into the Everglades.
The South Florida Water Management District last September asked the
Supreme Court to review the case but the justices held off in order
to receive views from the U.S. They finally got it last week,
when Solicitor General Ted Olson submitted a brief backing the tribe.
According to law scholars, the Department of Justice's views tend
to influence the court's thinking on the case. With that in hand,
the justices will soon decide whether to review the battle,
one of many in the $8 billion Everglades cleanup effort.
The petition for a writ of certiorari in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe ,
No. 02-626, was filed October 21, 2002. The tribe and Friends of the
Everglades, an environmental group, responded November 25, 2002.
Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group that has
represented non-Indian challenges to tribal authority and is
involved in the Klamath River Basin litigation, has filed
a friend of the court brief siding with the water district.
Lower Court Rulings:
Miccosukee Tribe v. South Florida Water Management District, No. 00-15703
(February 1, 2002)
Relevant Documents:
Docket Sheet: No. 02-626
(Supreme Court)
Related Stories:
* Judge to appoint special
master in Everglades suit
* DOJ brief backs tribe in
Everglades cleanup suit
Land Dispute
Who owns the land around Lake Havasu? According to the federal government,
the Chemehuevi Tribe does. According to most everyone else,
the federal government does.
So goes the long-running saga between the tribe and non-Indians who
say the boundaries of the Chemehuevi Reservation were wrongfully changed.
At issue in the the latest dispute, which dates to the 1940s, is
whether the tribe can evict non-Indians from cabins located on land
leased from the tribe.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision, tossed
the suit challenging the eviction. The non-Indians filed a petition for
writ of certiorari on February 21. The tribe responded April 21
and the Department of Justice, on behalf of Secretary of
Interior Gale Norton, responded May 21.
Relevant Documents:
Docket Sheet: No. 02-1393
(Supreme Court)
Department of Justice Brief
(May 21, 2003)
Self-Determination
Self-determination has been the policy of the U.S. since the Nixon
era and tribes have embraced it. But tribes often complain that federal
agencies don't provide enough funds to administer programs.
So the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribe of Nevada,
supported by various other tribes in amicus briefs,
are suing the Department of Health and Human Services in hopes of obtaining
"direct and indirect expense" costs associated with operating the programs.
But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last November ruled against the tribes and
said it's up to the federal government to decide how much money to distribute.
The tribes filed a petition for certiorari on April 3. The Department of
Justice has been given until June 6 to respond.
Lower Court Rulings:
Cherokee Nation v. Thompson, No. 01-7106
(February 1, 2002)
Relevant Documents:
Docket Sheet: No. 02-1472
(Supreme Court)
Related Stories:
* Court rebuffs tribes on contract
funding dispute
Taxation
Last September, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Kip R. Ramsey,
a member of the Yakama Nation of Washington who owns a logging company.
The unanimous ruling said the IRS can impose heavy vehicle and diesel fuel taxes
on tribal members, rejecting arguments that an 1855 treaty protected
the rights of individual Indians.
Having paid nearly $500,000 in taxes to the IRS, Ramsey is challenging
the lower court ruling. He filed a petition
for certiorari on April 22. The Department of Justice has been given
until June 26 to file a response.
Lower Court Rulings:
Ramsey v. U.S., No. 01-35014
(September 11, 2002)
Relevant Documents:
Docket Sheet: No. 02-1547
(Supreme Court)
Related Stories:
* Court:
Tribal members must pay federal tax
Treaty Rights
An attorney for the Mountain States Legal Foundation is representing
a non-Indian in a challenge to the state of Montana's hunting
regulations, which prohibit non-Indians from hunting big game
on the state's reservations
After shooting and killing a whitetail buck on private property
within the Flathead Reservation, Sandra Shook pleaded guilty in state
court to violating the ban. She then took her case to
the courts, charging that the state's regulations violate
the the U.S. Constitution and are unlawful.
Shook filed the petition for certiorari on May 9.
The state of Montana has been given until July 28 to respond.
When the case was argued at the Montana Supreme Court, the Flathead
Nation and the
Montana-Wyoming Tribal Judges Association filed amicus briefs.
Lower Court Rulings:
State v. Shook, No. 99-608
(December 30, 2002)
Relevant Documents:
Docket Sheet: No. 02-1658
(Supreme Court)
Case Documents: State v. Shook
(State Law Library of Montana)
|
Printer friendly version