SUMMARY OF INDIAN LAW CASES
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
1997-1998 TERM (as of July 1, 1998)

    I. Opinions delivered in six (6) cases involving Native Americans:


    SUBJECT:
    Indian country defined, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

    ISSUES:
    1. Did Ninth Circuit correctly hold - in conflict with clear intent of Congress in enacting ANCSA, decisions of Alaska Supreme Court, and interpretation of federal agency charged with implementing ANCSA - that ANCSA land may constitute Indian country within Section 1151(b)?
    2. If so, did the Ninth Circuit correctly hold - in conflict with decisions of this court and other federal circuits - that determination whether land is Indian country within Section 1151(b) should depend upon ad hoc, six-part balancing test incapabl e of producing predictable results?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed April 4, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari granted June 23, 1997.
    Oral Argument on for December 10, 1997.
    Decision February 25, 1998.



    SUBJECTS:
    Taxation - state and local, General Allotment Act, land patents, reacquisition of land

    ISSUES:
    Under Yakima County v. Yakima Indian Nation, is land originally patented by U.S. government and subsequently reaquired in fee simple by Indian band, subject to state and local government taxation if it remains freely alienable, irrespective of statute or treaty under which it was originally conveyed?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed July 8, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari granted October 31, 1997.
    Decision June 8, 1998.


    SUBJECT:
    Submerged lands, equal footing doctrine, Eleventh Amendment, executive powers

    ISSUES:
    1. May federal court hear action against state officers for injunctive and declaratory relief when such relief requires adjudication of state's title to, and will deprive state of all practical benefits of ownership of, disputed waters and submerged l ands?
    2. Can President, acting without express Congressional authority, convey title of beds and banks of navigable waters to Indian tribe, thereby defeating state's entitlement to such lands under equal footing doctrine of Constitution?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for certiorari filed April 3, 1996.
    Petition granted April 15, 1996.
    Oral argument October 16, 1996.
    Decision June 23, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    State jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, Indian Commerce Clause

    ISSUES:
    1. Under Indian Commerce Clause is federally recognized Indian tribe that has not waived its sovereign immunity subject to "inherent jurisdiction" of state court because commerce from which suit arises took place, in part outside tribal territory?
    2. Under Indian Commerce Clause and Treaty Clause, can state jurisdiction over Indian tribes be limited solely by explicity "ouster" of jurisdiction by Congress?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed December 23, 1996
    Petition for Certiorari granted June 27, 1997
    Oral argument February 23, 1998
    Decision May 26, 1998



    SUBJECTS:
    Taxation, mineral leases

    ISSUES:
    May Indian tribe, or United States on tribe's behalf, recover in quasi-contract from state and county taxes paid pursuant to state law by third-party taxpayer that has any entitlement to refund?

    HISTORY
    Petitition for Certiorari filed May 16, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari granted October 14, 1997.
    Oral Argument February 24, 1998.


    SUBJECTS:
    Reservation disestablishment, reservation diminishment, tribal regulatory authority

    ISSUES:
    Has Yankton Sioux Reservation been disestablished or diminished by virtue of 1894 act adopting "cession and sum certain" agreement between Yankton Sioux Tribe and United States and by virtue of its century long treatment as disestablished or diminishe d?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed April 7, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari granted June 9, 1997.
    Argument set for December 8, 1997.
    Decision January 26, 1998.

  1. Petitions for Certiorari Granted in (4) cases involving Native Americans


    SUBJECTS:
    Hunting and fishing rights

    ISSUES:
    1. Did Eighth Circuit correctly hold - in conflict with decisions of this court - that presidential order may be reviewed and held invalid?
    2. Did Eighth Circuit correctly hold that 1855 treaty relinquishment of right, title and interest did not extinguish hunting and fishing rights in territory?
    3. May federal court decline to apply this court's "moderate living" doctrine and order that maximum of one-half hunting and fishing be dedicated to Indian band's harvest even though band has become wealthy as consequence of casino gambling?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed February 17, 1998.
    Petition for Certiorari granted June 8, 1998 by Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, Docket No. 97-1337.


    SUBJECTS:
    Taxation, tribal sovereignty, federal contracts

    ISSUES:
    1. Is state tax on contractor doing business with United States on Indian reservation preempted when Congress has not expressly provided for such preemption and there is no infringement on tribal sovereignty because no tribal funds are used and no tr ibe is party to contract?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed ?
    Petition for Certiorari granted May 18, 1998.


    SUBJECTS:
    Hunting and fishing rights, Treaties - Express abrogation.

    ISSUES:
    1. Does treaty provision that gives Indian bands right to hunt and fish "during the pleasure of the President" create only temporary rights that are extinguished when state is admitted to Union on equal footing with original 13 states?
    2. Does treaty ceding to the United States "all right, title and interest of whatsover nature" in previously ceded territory constitution express abrogation of hunting and fishing rights reserved in previous treaty under this court's holding in Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Tribe?
    3. Did president act within scope of his congressional authority when he revoked Indians' right to hunt and fish under treaty that guaranteed only those rights "during the pleasure of the President of the United States"?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed February 17, 1998.
    Petition for Certiorari granted June 8, 1998.


    SUBJECTS:
    Hunting and fishing rights, State jurisdiction

    ISSUES:
    1.Was "privilege of hunting. fishing, and gathering the wild rice upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the ceded territory...during the pleasure of the President" contained in 1837 treaty with Chippewa Indians revoked by executive act ions, including 1850 presidential order that states that "the privileges granted temporarily to the Chippewa Indians, by the Fifth Article of the Treaty...of July 1837 are hereby revoked"?
    2. Was privilege relinquished by 1855 treaty, when Chippewa agreed to "relinquish and convey to United States any and all right, title or interest...in, and to any other lands in the territory of Minnesota or elsewhere?"
    3. Were Chippewas subject to state regulation for all off-reservation hunting and fishing activities by virtue of Nelson Act, 25 Stat. 642 (1889), and General Allotment Act, 24 Stat. 388 (1887)?
    4. Is lower court's characterization of privilege of immunity from state regulation rather than revocable license or other interest "in or to land" contrary to Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985)?
    5. Does lower court's determination that privilege operates as immunity from state regulation unconstituionally usurp state police powers in conflict with principles of federalism embodied in Tenth Amendment and equal footing doctrine?
    6. Is present litigation against state barred by Indian Claims Commission Act, which provided for exclusive forum and statute of limitations, and under which monetary award was granted to Chippewa for claims under 1873 treaty?
    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed February 17, 1998.
    Petition for Certiorari granted June 8, 1998 by Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, Docket No. 97-1337.


  1. III Summary disposition or Certiorari denied:


    SUBJECTS:
    Water quality, tribal codes - water quality, tribal regulatory authority

    ISSUES:
    1. Can EPA approve and enforce Indian pueblo water quality standards beyond pueblo boundaries when those standards have no scientific or rational basis?

    2. Is EPA action that forces city of Albuquerque to spend taxpayer money to protect Indian pueblo religious uses of river water allowable under Establishment Clause?

    3. Does EPA's unreasonable consequences resolution process comply with Clean Water Act mandate when it is not binding and denies standing to affected parties?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed April 7, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied November 10, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    Tribal court jurisdiction, exhaustion of remedies

    ISSUES:
    Did Court of Appeals err, in light of this court's recent decision in Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 65 LW 4298 (April 28, 1997), in concluding that exhaustion of tribal court remedies is mandatory and that district court therefore had no discretion to i ssue preliminary injunction to protect Burlington Northern's interstate rail assets from being seized by Crow Tribal Court to satisfy $250 million personal injury award entered by that court?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed May 16, 1997.
    Summary action - Judgment vacated on October 6, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    Jurisdiction, State court, Domestic relations
    ISSUES:
    1. Should Minnesota district court retain jurisdiction over post-dissolution matters involving parent and children who are enrolled members of Indian tribe when one parent has legal domicile on Indian reservation and other parent now has legal domicil e in state other than Minnesota?
    2. Should person be held in contempt for his failure to obtain tribal court order for child support withholding when Minnesota district court entering order declines to allow tribal court itself to entertain matter or to follow tribal law and when spo use asking for contempt order has declined to request relief for herself in tribal court?
    3. Does either comity or U.S. Supreme Court precedent oblige state court to assert jurisdiction over family law matter when tribe has drafted family law code and established competent tribal court system since date of state court dissolution of marria ge?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed November 3, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied January 20, 1998.


    SUBJECTS:
    Preemption doctrine, state taxation

    ISSUES:
    Does federal Indian preemption analysis apply to state taxation of proceeds of contract between contractor and federal Indian agency for construction project on Indian reservation for exclusive benefit of members of federally recognized Indian tribes?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed July 15, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied October 6, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    State jurisdiction, Domestic relations

    ISSUES:
    1. Under Section 6 of Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. 1755, has Connecticut validly assumed civil jurisdiction over Mashantucket Pequot Reservation even though state took no formal action to manifest its intent to assume such jurisdiction (in contrast to what state has done to assume jurisdiction over another reservation within state), and tribe did not formally consent to state's assumption of such jurisdiction?
    2. In this divorce and custody case, did Connecticut courts err in failing to abstain in favor of parallel proceedings before Mashantucket Pequot Tribal court when (a) tribal court has jurisdiction to decide matter; (b) defendant is enrolled member of tribe who lives on tribal reservation, child is enrolled member of tribe, and plaintiff is not Connecticut resident; and (c) terms of Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, even if construed to vest state with concurrent jurisdiction, would still require state to apply principles of tribal law that do not conflict with state law?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for certiorari filed February 17, 1998.
    Certiorari denied May 25 1998.



    SUBJECTS:
    Tribal sovereign immunity, Indian Commerce Clause

    ISSUES:
    1. Does state court violate Indian Commerce and Supremacy Clauses by rejecting federal decisional law that Indian tribes are immune from suit in state courts even for actions on contracts executed outside of Indian country?
    2. Does state court violate Indian Commerce and Supremacy Clauses by ignoring Supreme Court decisions to enter money judgments against Indian tribe for unperformed contract to build roof on building located on land owned by tribe when tribe has not wa ived sovereign immunity and contract is not endorced by Secretary of Interior?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed April 25, 1997.
    Judgment vacated June 1, 1998.


    SUBJECTS:
    Tribal sovereign immunity.

    ISSUES:
    1. Does Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), limit or overrule Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974), by requiring strict level of scrutiny for statutory schemes benefitting Indian tribes and/or tribal businesses as racially disti nct groups?
    2. Is operation of for-profit gambling casino "governmental" purpose that entitles corporation chartered by Indian tribe to assert sovereign immunity as defense to tort claims arising from casino's normal business operations?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed June 9, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied June 1, 1998


    SUBJECTS:
    Sale of fireworks, jurisdiction - Indian trust land

    ISSUES:
    1. Does State of Washington have jurisdiction to enforce itsfireworks law on treaty Indians doing business on off- reservation Indian trust land?
    2. Does City of Puyallup have jurisdiction to enforce municipal fireworks law on treaty Indian doing business on off-reservation Indian trust land?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed January 5, 1998.
    Petition for Certiorari denied February 2, 1998.


    SUBJECTS:
    Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

    ISSUES:
    1. Does federal statute, 25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(A), which requires the state governor to enact or administer federal scheme under IGRA to regulate proposed gaming establishment on newly acquired trust land, violate dual sovereignty principles articulate d in Constitution?

    2. Has Congress unconstitutionally diminished power of executive branch to execute laws of United States by giving state governors power to veto administrative determination of federal officer made pursuant to standards established by Congress in Sect ion 20 of IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(A)?

    3. Is 25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(A), which requires state governor to concur in Secretary of Interior's legislatively established determination that proposed Indian gaming establishment is in the best interest of the tribe and is not detrimental to surround ing community, contingent legislation, and if so, is Congress' delegation of this federal policy decision to state official unconstitutional?

    4. Is 25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(A), which requires state governor to concur in Secretary of Interior's determination that proposed Indian gaming establishment is in the best interest of Indian tribe and its members and is not detrimental to surrounding com munity, when no state law authority authorizes governor to make such determination, exercise of state authority, and if so, is such congressional delegation unconstitutional?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed September 9, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied December 15, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    Taxation, sovereignty

    ISSUES:
    Should doubts be resolved against wrongdoer and appropriate equitable relief be fashioned to remedy violation of statutory and sovereign rights of Crow tribe by imposition of Montana's invalid 30 percent taxes on tribe's coal resources based on courts ' finding that illegal taxes "impair[ed] the tribe's ability to negotiate leases with Shell Oil and other coal companies"?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed June 13, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied October 6, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    Reservations - boundaries, reservations - diminishment

    ISSUES:
    1. Has Hagen v. Utah been misconstrued to preserve historic reservation boundaries in Utah that encompass hundreds of acres of fee lands, countrary to (I) 20 years of express representations by parties and amici in Ute Indian Tribe and Hagen litigatio n, which conceded that reservation would consist of only trust lands if public domain language of acts was implemented, (ii) 35 years of express representations by parties and amici in all other related litigation, which similarly conceded that other affe cted reservation areas would also consist of only trust lands if reservation area were, in fact, diminished, (iii)any practical considerartion when respondent tribe has conceded that implementation would be completely unworkable and unprecedented, and (iv ) any consideration of comity because injunction will be said to peclude Utah Supreme Court (and parties and all others) from expressing their views on Hagen, in spite of fact that Utah Supreme Court was affirmed in Hagen?

    2. Has precedential scope of Hagen v. Utah been improperly restricted on "finality" principles by court of appeals, which summarily precluded any further consideration, in light of Hagen, of status of original Uncompahgre reservation and national forest, which were issues in pari materia in Ute Indian tribe litigation (I) when district court expressily stated that it did "not reach any question" regarding status of these areas, and (ii) when United States specifically conceded that, in its view, h istoric Uncompahgre reservation no longer exists (and it is no longer inhabited by any tribal member), and when injunction precludeds comity considerations?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed September 29, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied February 23, 1998


    SUBJECTS:
    Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, sovereign immunity

    ISSUES:
    1. May qualified members of a federally recognized Indian tribe, as only persons intended by Congress to benefit from that tribe's gaming operations, seek declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court to halt distribution of net gaming revenues t o acknowledged non-members of tribe in violation of IGRA?

    2. Does federally recognized Indian tribe, by engaging in federally regulated gaming activities, waive its right to claim sovereign immunity from enforcement of IGRA?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed April 28, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied October 6, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    Tribal sovereign immunity, tribal business enteriprises.

    ISSUES:
    1. Does defense of tribal sovereign imunity apply to Native American owned corporation, which is separate and distinct from tribe, when it conducts business off-reservation?

    2. Does Native American owned corporation waive tribal sovereign immunity defense when it appoints agent for service of process and irrevocably consents to be sued in Minnesota courts for purposes of voluntarily obtaining certificate of authority?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed January 29, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied June 1, 1997


    SUBJECTS:
    Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act, expert testimony

    ISSUES:
    1. Should this court resolve circuit conflict as to whether standards governing admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. are applicable to all expert testimony based upon “novel scientific theory”?
    2. Under 1974 Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act, does federal government’s liability for damages to Hopi Partitioned Land depend on whether or not government’s failure to perform its legal duty to protect HPL was unreasonable?
    3. Under 1974 Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act, should Navajo Nation be liable to Hopi Tribe for monetary damages to lands in absence of any proof that Hopi suffered any monetary loss?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed December 16, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied February 23, 1998.


    SUBJECTS:
    Alaska natives, equal protection, Reindeer Industry Act

    ISSUES:

    1. In light of Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200(1995), does rational basis standard of review adopted in Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974), continue to apply to constitutional equal protection challenges to Congressional enactments singling out Native Americans for special treatment?
    2. If so, is application of Mancari standard of equal protection review of Indian classification restricted to those addressing "uniquely Indian interests"?
    3. Is Reindeer Industry Act, as construed by Secretary of Interior to prohibit non-natives from competing in industry, constitutional equal protection component of Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed February 5, 1998 .
    Petition for Certiorari denied May 18, 1998.



    SUBJECTS:
    Tribal Sovereign immunity, tribal self-government, taxation

    ISSUES:
    1. Does seizure of federally recognized Indian tribe's tribal revenue by use of state court post-judgment remedies: (a) violate tribe's sovereign immunity, or (b) infringe upon the tribe's right to self-government and Congress' goal of tribal self-det ermination?
    2. Does state court injunction that prohibits federally recognized Indian tribe from enforcing its tribal tax laws on Indian country under tribe's jusidiction: (a) violate tribe's sovereign immunity, or (b) infringe upon tribe's right to self governme nt and Congress'goal of tribal self-determination?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed July 30, 1997.
    Judgement vacated June 1, 1998


    SUBJECTS:
    Taxation - state and local, General Allotment Act, land patents, reacquisition of land

    ISSUES:
    Was inherent tax immunity of tribal governments extinguished with unmistakable clarity by provisions in 1887 General Allotment Act permitting land to be patented in fee to individual Indians?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed August 7, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied November 3, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    Tribal sovereignty, hunting and fishing rights, tribal regulatory authority

    ISSUES:
    1. Should certiorari be granted to determine whether Congress may empower South Dakota to exercise independent jurisdiction over recreational activities within taken areas, including its jurisdiction over non-Indians and non-members?

    2. Should certiorari be granted to clarify Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 544 (1981), exceptions that are to be applied to activities of general public within taken areas within Lower Brule Sioux Reservation that has not been opened under homestead laws?

    3. Should certiorari be granted to clarify effects on jurisdiction of tribe when allotted Indian sells his or her lands to non-Indian or non-member Indian within exterior boundaries of reservation?

    4. Should certiorari be granted to clarify circumstances when summary judgment is appropriate for Indian jurisdiction cases that must be decided by making particularized inquiries into numerous and complex facts?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed June 3, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied October 6, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    Criminal jurisdiction, tribal jurisdiction, state jurisdiction

    ISSUES:
    1. Did court of appeals err in finding that state law enforcement officers have law enforcement authority over Native American members of Indian reservation for traffic violations occurring exclusively within that reservation?

    2. Did court of appeals err in denying de novo review of suppression motion and in summarily affirming lower court's disposition premised on state law enforcement officers' authority to detain or arrest Native American member of Indian reservation whi le said member stood in doorway of his residence on his reservation?

    3. Did court of appeals err in summarily affirming assault conviction notwithstanding defendant's uncontested good-faith mistake defense that his actions were based on the belief that state law enforcement officer had no authority to detain him or arr est him?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed August 25, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied November 17, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    Indian lands - defined

    ISSUES:
    Should 25 U.S.C. 81, enacted for benefit of Indian tribes in 1872, be judicially construed to reflect modern trends and practices and, thus, to limit words "Indian lands" to mean only "Indian trust lands" and not lands held by Indians in fee simple for in vestment purposes?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed August 4, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied October 6, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    Taxation, tribal enterprises, sovereignty

    ISSUES:
    1. Can Arizona tax operations of a hotel that is owned and owned and regulated by Indian tribe and that was specifically designed and federally funded to promote tribe’s economic development?
    2. In assessing whether federal law preempts state’s attempt to tax tribally owned hotel, do separate-of-powers concerns allow federal court to second-guess executive branch’s determination that hotel advances significant federal and tribal interests?
    3. When Indian tribe’s use of non-Indian assistance is federally required and advances federal and tribal interests, does that involvement nonetheless diminish federal and tribal interests to be considered in determining whether state can tax project?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed November 10, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied January 20, 1998.


    SUBJECTS:
    Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, tribal-state gaming compacts

    ISSUES:
    1. Under IGRA, may post hoc challenge to validity of state's agreement to approved tribal-state gaming compact be adjudicated directly in courts, or must it first be made to the Secretary of Interior?

    2. Under IGRA, may tribal-state compact that has been approved by Secretary of Interior and that is in effect be judicially invalidated on basis of subsequent court determination that there was state law defect in state's agreement to compact?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed April 10, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied October 6, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    State taxation, motor vehicles

    ISSUES:
    May South Dakota's one-time 3 percent excise tax imposed in lieu of sales and use taxes upon motor vehicles "purchased or acquired for use" within state, and which is virtually identical to taxes imposed upon sale of motor vehicles in other states, be applied to Cheyenne River Sioux tribal members residing on their reservations who purchase motor vehicles outside their reservation but within South Dakota?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed August 11, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied November 17, 1997.


    SUBJECTS:
    Tribal court jurisdiction

    ISSUES:
    1. If non-Indians have interest in highway on reservation, should tribal interest in protecting its members be sufficient to exercise civil jurisdiction?

    2. Did Blackfeet Tribal Court have jurisdiction over this case involving motor vehicle collision that occurred on Indian reservation between tribal member and non-tribal member?

    3. Did Ninth Circuit err in applying holding of Strate v. A-1 Contractors, based on presumptions that facts of two cases are similar?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for certiorari filed February 17, 1998.
    Petition for certiorari denied April 20, 1998.


    SUBJECTS:
    Taxation, tribal enterprises, sovereignty

    ISSUES:
    1. Are state’s attempts to tax operation of tribally owned hotel on Indian reservation discriminatory - and therefore preempted - especially when state refuses to provide hotel basic government services it provides to off-reservation entities, and when tribe provides those services at its own expense?
    2. Does tribal economic development project that combines Indian and non-Indian capital to attract customers to hotel on reservation represent sovereignty interest of tribal government that furthers federal policy and preempts state taxation?

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed November 10, 1997.
    Petition for Certiorari denied January 20, 1998.


  1. Petition for Certiorari Review filed in three (3) cases involving Native Americans:


    SUBJECTS:
    Taxation, General Allotment Act

    ISSUES:
    May state continue to impose ad valorem property taxes upon parcel even though it was originally allotted under provisions of treaty rather than General Allotment Act?
    HISTORY:
    Petition for certiorari filed June 30, 1997.



    SUBJECTS:
    Ute Termination Act, equal protection, hunting and fishing rights

    ISSUES:
    In contravention of this court's precedent and in conflict with another circuit court of appeals, did Tenth Circuit err in holding that "Indian termination legislation," now largely repealed, may nevertheless be read to dismember Indian tribe and depr ive tribal decendants of ancestral treaty rights in violation of their rights of association and equal protection.

    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed March 23,1998.


    SUBJECTS:
    Tribal Court jurisdiction

    ISSUES:
    1. If non-Indians have interest in highway on reservation, should tribal interest in protecting its members be sufficient to exercise civil jurisdiction?

    2. Did Blackfeet Tribal Court have jurisdiction over this case involving motor vehicle collision that occurred on Indian reservation between tribal member and non-tribal member?
    3. Did Ninth Circuit err in applying holding of Strate v. A-1 Contractors, based on presumptions that facts of two cases are similar?
    HISTORY:
    Petition for Certiorari filed February 17, 1998.


    Compiled by: Laura Chiyono Rosenthal, National Indian Law Library