Last term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued six (6 ) opinions in cases involving or affecting Native Americans. They were:

1.Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 118 S.Ct. 948, 140 L.Ed.2d 30 (1998);

2.Cass County, MN v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 118 S.Ct. 1904, 141 L.Ed.2d 90 (1998);

3. Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997);

4. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed. 2d 981 (1998);

5. Montana v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 118 S.Ct. 1650, 140 L.Ed. 2d 898 (1998); and

6. South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 118 S.Ct. 789, 139 L.Ed. 2d 773 (1998).

The Court accepted certiorari in four (4) cases involving or affecting Native Americans. The Petitions for Certiorari review filed in Aitkin County, Minn. v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, Docket No. 97-1356 and Thompson v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa indians, Docket Nol. 97-1357, were "granted" by the Court's granting of The Petition for Certiorari Review in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, Docket No. 97-1337 on June 8, 1998. This case, and Arizona Dept. of Revenue v. Blaze Construction Co., 97-1536, are being briefed, and awaiting setting of oral argument in this term of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I. So far this term (as of October 15, 1998), no (0) opinions have been issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases involving or affecting Native Americans.

II. Petitions for Certiorari Review were granted in three (3) cases involving Native Americans. Two of these cases were carried over from last term.

(1.) Arizona Dept. Of Revenue v. Blaze Construction Co., Docket No. 97-1536

CARRIED OVER FROM LAST TERM

SUBJECTS: Taxation, Indian law preemption doctrine, federal contracts

ISSUE:
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 tribe is party to contract?

HISTORY: Petition for certiorari filed March 16, 1998.

Petition for certiorari granted May 18, 1998.

Oral argument scheduled for December 8, 1998.

(The United States will be arguing on behalf of the petitioner in this matter.)

(2.) El Paso Natural Gas v. Neztsosie, Docket No. 98-6

SUBJECTS: Exhaustion of tribal remedies, preemption, tribal court jurisdiction

ISSUES:

1. When non-Indians have been sued in tribal court solely under tribal-law causes of action that have been preempted by federal law, must those parties exhaust all tribal remedies before federal court may consider preemption issue?

2. When tribal court asserts adjudicatory jurisdiction against non-Indians involving subject over which tribe has no regulatory jurisdiction, must those parties exhaust all tribal remedies before seeking relief in federal court?

3. Did court of appeals improperly reverse, sua sponte, injunction from which enjoined parties had not appealed?

HISTORY: Petition for certiorari filed June 26, 1998.

(3.) Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, Docket No. 97-1337.

CARRIED OVER FROM LAST TERM

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 whatsoever 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 Indian 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.

Oral argument is scheduled for December 2, 1998.

III. Petitions for certiorari review were denied, or received summary disposition, in five (5) cases involving or affecting Native Americans. Three of petitions were carried over from last term.

(1)Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. United States, Docket No. 98-50

SUBJECTS: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Tribal-state compact

ISSUE:
1. Does compact between state and Indian tribe that expressly defines locations where Indian gaming may be conducted "regulate" that gaming for purposes of Section 2719 of IGRA, which otherwise would require concurrence by state's governor in "best interest" determination by Secretary of Interior?

HISTORY: Petition for certiorari filed June 30, 1998.

Petition for certiorari denied October 13, 1998.

(2)Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Hoover, Docket No. 97-2005

SUBJECTS: Sovereign immunity - implied waiver

ISSUE:1. Is federal recognized Indian tribe that has not waived its sovereign immunity to suit subject to jurisdiction of state court because commerce from which this suit arises took place, in part, outside tribal territory?

HISTORY: Petition for certiorari filed June 15, 1998.

Petition for certiorari granted October 5, 1998. Judgment vacated and remanded to Supreme Court of Oklahoma for further consideration in light of Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. _____, 1998, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d. 981 (1998).

(3.)Montana v. EPA, Docket No. 97-1929

CARRIED OVER FROM LAST TERM.

SUBJECTS: Water quality - tribal regulatory authority, Clean Water Act

ISSUE:
1. Does Indian tribe have inherent regulatory authority over state and its local government with respect to discharges into streams and other bodies of water from fee-owned land within boundaries of tribe's reservation?

HISTORY: Petition for certiorari filed May 29, 1998.

Petition for certiorari denied October 5, 1998.

(4.) Murdock v. U.S., Docket No. 97-1575.

CARRIED OVER FROM LAST TERM.

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

ISSUES:
1. 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 deprive tribal descendants of ancestral treaty rights in violation of their rights of association and equal protection?

HISTORY: Petition for certiorari filed March 23, 1998.

Petition for certiorari denied October 5, 1998.

(5). Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska v. United States, Docket No. 97-1839

CARRIED OVER FROM LAST TERM

SUBJECTS: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Tribal-state compacts

ISSUES: 1. Do scope of IGRA gaming provisions incorporate entire corpus of state law and regulations for purposes of tribal-state compact negotiations?

2. Are Class III gaming provisions of IGRA valid in light of holding in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, that compact enforcement provision of IGRA is unconstitutional?

HISTORY: Petition for certiorari filed May 15, 1998.

Petition for certiorari denied October 5, 1998.

IV. So far this term, Petitions for certiorari review have been filed in three (3) cases involving or affecting Native Americans.

(1).Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, Docket No. 98-281

SUBJECTS: Reservations - creation and establishment, Secretary of the Interior - authority to place land in trust

ISSUE: 1. Pursuant to discretionary authority delegated to secretary of interior in 25 U.S.C. 465 and regulations promulgated thereunder, 25 C.F.R. 151.2(f) and 151.8, can secretary of interior place land in trust for Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, which shares common former reservation area with Potawatomi Tribe within State of Oklahoma, without obtaining consent from Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe when secretary of interior has determined that language and legislative history of cession acts of both tribes, when considered together with Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U.S. 476 (1937), support conclusion that Congress intended to recognize and confirm rights of Absentee Shawnee in Potawatomi reservation?

HISTORY: Petition for certiorari filed August 13, 1998.

(2).Bering Strait School District v. United States, Docket No. 98-172

SUBJECTS: Statutory interpretation, Federal benefits - health services

ISSUE:
1.When federal statutory right of recovery excludes recovery against "any State," should that exclusion apply to instrumentality created and funded by Alaska legislature for sole purpose of providing constitutionally mandated state educational services?

HISTORY: Petition for certiorari filed July 24, 1998.

(3).Stoner v. United States, Docket No. 98-68

SUBJECTS: Statutory interpretation, limitation of action

ISSUE:
1. For statute of limitations purposes, must indictment charging conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. Section 371 allege at least once specific overt act occurring within limitations period established by 18 U.S.C. Section 3282?

HISTORY: Petition for certiorari filed July 6, 1998.

Compiled by: Laura Chiyono Rosenthal, National Indian Law Library