Indianz.com

Indianz.Com. In Print.
URL http://www.indianz.com/News/printme.asp?ID=2003%2F04%2F29%2Finyo

Oral argument transcript posted in Inyo County case
TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003

The Supreme Court web site has posted a transcript of the oral argument session for Inyo County v. Bishop Paiute Tribe, No. 02-281.

Paul D. Kirby argued for Inyo County. He argued that state criminal subpoenas can be enforced against tribal governments.

Barbara B. McDowell, a Department of Justice attorney, argued next in part for the county and in part for the Bishop Paiute Tribe. She said tribal governments are not subordinate to state governments but that tribes don't have standing for violations of their civil rights.

Reid Peyton Chambers argued next for the Bishop Paiute Tribe.

As is court practice, the names of the justices who speak are not identified. But the passage that drew most criticism from observers took place between Justice Antonin Scalia and McDowell. Scalia questioned why the U.S. was backing the tribe's "lesser" sovereignty.

"I am perplexed at why -- why the United States wants to accord the -- the tribe's commercial enterprises greater protection than is accorded to England or -- or Germany or any -- any foreign sovereign," he said.

Transcript:
Inyo County v. Bishop Paiute Tribe (March 31, 2003)

Supreme Court Briefs:
Inyo County v. Bishop Paiute Tribe

Decision Below:
BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE v. COUNTY OF INYO No. 01-15007 (January 4, 2002)

Relevant Documents:
Docket Sheet: No. 02-281 | Senate Testimony: Monty Bengochia on Supreme Court Precedents

Relevant Links:
Paiuite Palace Casino - http://www.paiutepalace.com
Inyo County - http://www.countyofinyo.org