Indian Law Bulletins | U.S. Supreme Court | Current 2014-2015 Term
News Related to the Current Supreme Court Term
See the Tribal Supreme Court Project Update Memoranda for September 24, 2014.
Supreme Court cases impacting Native Americans
2014-2015 Supreme Court Term
(October 2014 - July 2015)
Last Updated: 10/24/14
Please alert us to any cases we may have missed from the U.S. Supreme Court.
See also the website for the Tribal Supreme Court Project for cases related to Native American law.
A note about links used in this document
Blue links are to free materials on the internet.
Green links are to Westlaw, for the convenience of those who have a Westlaw account.
Please contact the National Indian Law Library if you need help obtaining legal documents.
The National Indian Law Library and Native American Rights Fund are not affiliated with Westlaw. See www.westlaw.com for more information about the Westlaw legal databases.
* Issues and holdings are provided under an agreement BNA, Inc. www.bna.com
See Cases by Status
- Cases decided
- Petitions for certiorari granted
- Petitions for certiorari pending
- Petitions for certiorari denied
Currently, no Native American law cases has been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2014-2015 term.
Petition for certiorari granted
Currently, no pending Native American law cases have been granted review for the 2014-2015 term.
Petition for certiorari pending
Currently, 5 petitions for writs of certiorari are pending in the 2014-2015 term.
*Issues: May the authority of a tribal official who signs a waiver of sovereign immunity be established under the doctrine of apparent authority?
History: Petition was filed on 10/09/14.
*Holding Below: MM&A Productions, LLC v. Yavapai-Apache Nation, 234 Ariz. 60. The trial court didn't err to the extent it implied it wouldn't find a valid waiver of the American Indian tribe's sovereign immunity based on a theory of apparent authority. An American Indian tribe's authorization to waive its immunity by agreement must be express, contrary to the company's suggestion that an official cloaked with apparent authority may execute a valid waiver absent actual authority to do so. The trial court's judgment dismissing the company's contract action, for claims including alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, is affirmed.
*Issues: Does sovereign immunity bar an American Indian tribe from seeking Ex parte Young relief from the unconstitutional enforcement of a state tax scheme merely because that relief might require refunds for taxes unlawfully collected in the future?
History: Petition was filed on 9/25/14.
*Holding Below: Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida Department of Revenue, 750 F.3d 1238. The tribe's complaint—which argued that a Florida fuel tax charged at gas stations outside of tribal land was unconstitutional—was barred by state sovereign immunity. The declaratory judgment that the tribe sought would have demanded that the tax collector award money from state coffers equaling the fuel taxes that the state revenue department would already have collected from the fuel supplier. Whether the tribe labeled the relief it sought as an “exemption” or a “refund,” such relief was compensatory and prohibited under the Ex parte Young doctrine. Therefore, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
*Issues: In an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §551, may a putative Indian tribe invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary's decision to recognize it as a tribe?
History: Petition was filed on 9/18/14.
*Holding Below: Friends of Amador County v. Salazar. 554 Fed. Appx. 562. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the tribe was a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1). As a result, the district court's judgment of dismissal based on the appellants' failure and inability to join the tribe as a required and indispensable party is affirmed. The tribe claims several legally protected interests relating to the subject of the action and the district court concluded correctly that disposing of the action in the tribe's absence would, as a practical matter, impair or impede the tribe's ability to protect these substantial interests. The district court also correctly concluded that joinder would not be feasible because the tribe enjoys sovereign immunity, despite the appellants' challenge to the validity of that federally recognized status.The court cannot simply turn a blind eye to the tribe's status in the Federal Register. Abrogation of sovereign immunity cannot be implied, but must be unequivocally expressed, and while the Administrative Procedure Act does waive the U.S.'s sovereign immunity in certain suits, it does not do the same for Indian tribes.
*Issues: Do Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmenbers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members?
History: Petition was filed on 6/12/14.
*Holding Below: Dolgencorp, Inc. v. the Mississippi Band of Chocktaw Indians, 746 F.3d 167. This court affirms the district court's judgment that the corporation's consensual relationship with John Doe gives rise to tribal court jurisdiction over Doe's tort claims under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981). In Montana, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that a tribe may regulate the activities of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with the tribe or its members through commercial dealing, contracts, leases or other arrangements. It is surely within the tribe's regulatory authority to insist that a child working for a local business not be sexually assaulted by the employees of the business. The fact that the regulation takes the form of a tort duty that may be vindicated by individual tribe members in tribal court makes no difference.
Related News Stories: Supreme Court asks DOJ for views in Mississippi Choctaw case (Indianz) 10/7/14.
*Issues: Does the 2000 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act require that prison officials actually consider and demonstrate a sufficient basis for rejecting widely accepted accommodations to traditional religious practices as part of their burden of proving that they have chosen the “least restrictive means” of furthering their asserted governmental interests?
History: Petition was filed on 2/06/14.
*Holding Below: Knight v. Thompson. 723 F.3d. 837. The district court's judgment in favor of the Alabama Department of Corrections is affirmed. The ADOC carried its burden under the 2000 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to demonstrate that its hair-length policy was the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling governmental interests in security, discipline, hygiene and safety within its prisons and in the public's safety in the event of escapes and alteration of appearances. The equal protection claim was meritless, because there was no evidence that the hair-length policy discriminated on the basis of race or religion.
Currently, 3 petitions for writs of certiorari have been denied in the 2014-2015 term.
*Issues: Is an insurance company doing business with a federally recognized American Indian Tribe entitled to sovereign immunity for the acts and omissions it takes in furtherance of the business of insurance?
History: Petition was filed on 9/03/14. Petition was denied on 10/14/14.
*Issues: (1) Should the Rooker-Feldman doctrine be overruled for denying all judicial relief by removing the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear any civil action brought against federally mandated statutes enforced in state courts? (2) Does Congress have the authority to adopt laws intended to be primarily of exclusively enforced in the state courts?
History: Petition was filed on 6/04/14. Petition was denied on 10/06/14.
*Holding Below: The order of the district court, dismissing plaintiff attorney's case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a collateral attack on a state court judgment, is affirmed. The questions raised in the appeal, attacking the doctrine and Congress's authority, are insubstantial.
*Issues: (1) Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit err in assuming facts not in evidence and finding that Yowell's cattle grazing ranges encompassed by the 1941 proclamation regarding the South Fork Indian Reservation were subject to Bureau of Land Management grazing regulations? (2) Did the Ninth Circuit err when it concluded that the BLM regulations and management applied to the ranges encompassed by the proclamation regarding the South Fork Indian Reservation? (3) Is Yowell's Article 6 treaty guaranteed vested right a clearly established federal right? (4) Are the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unwarranted seizure of property and the Fifth and 14th Amendment guarantees of due process clearly established federal rights held by Yowell? (5) Did the Ninth Circuit err when they assumed facts not in evidence and held that the duty was discretionary and that the state defendants followed the applicable brand inspection procedures? (6) Did the Ninth Circuit err when it did not consider the factual allegations in the Yowell complaint to be true?
History: Petition was filed on 1/17/14. Petition was denied on 10/06/14.
*Holding Below: Yowell v. Abbey, 532 Fed.Appx. 708. The district court abused its discretion in requiring the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw its certification of Yowell's debt to the Treasury Department. The district court failed to identify and apply the correct standard for granting an injunction. The district court erred in denying the federal defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration, because under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), no action may lie against federal agencies like the Treasury Department, and no Bivens action may lie against federal officials for “strictly enforcing rules against trespass or conditions on grazing permits.” Qualified immunity applied here because Yowell failed to establish that the state defendants either failed to follow the applicable state law, which thereby caused him to be deprived of a clearly established federal right, or that the state law was itself “patently violative of fundamental constitutional principles.”