Citizens Against Reservation Shopping v. Haugrud

Petition for certiorari denied on April 3, 2017
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
16-572 D.C. Cir. N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 2016

Issues: (1) Whether, under the Indian Reorganization Act, to have been a “recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934, a tribe must have been “recognized” at that time; and (2) whether, to have been “under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934, a tribe must have been located in Indian country—that is, on land over which the United States exercised jurisdiction to the exclusion of state jurisdiction.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders
Oct 27 2016Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 28, 2016)
Nov 23 2016Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 28, 2016, for all respondents.
Nov 23 2016Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by California State Association of Counties, et al.
Nov 28 2016Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon.
Nov 28 2016Brief amici curiae of California Tribal Business Alliance, et al. filed.
Dec 20 2016Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 27, 2017.
Jan 18 2017Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 17, 2017.
Feb 17 2017Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 1, 2017.
Mar 1 2017Brief of Federal respondents in opposition filed.
Mar 1 2017Brief of respondent The Cowlitz Indian Tribe in opposition filed.
Mar 15 2017Reply of petitioners Citizens Against Reservation Shopping, et al. filed.
Mar 15 2017DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Apr 3 2017Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by California State Association of Counties, et al. GRANTED.
Apr 3 2017Petition DENIED.
 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards