|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-604||2d Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2013|
Issue: Whether the 300,000-acre ancient Oneida reservation in New York still exists, neither disestablished nor diminished, despite (1) the federal government’s actions taken in furtherance of disestablishment (including, but not limited to, the 1838 Treaty of Buffalo Creek); (2) this Court’s holding in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York that the Oneida Indian Nation of New York cannot exercise sovereignty over lands it purchases in the ancient reservation area; and (3) this Court’s finding in that case that land in the ancient reservation area has not been treated as an Indian reservation by the federal, state or local governments for nearly two centuries.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 12 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 17, 2012)|
|Nov 23 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 16, 2012.|
|Nov 29 2012||Waiver of right of respondent Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Band of Mohican Indians, Putative Intervenor to respond filed.|
|Dec 14 2012||Brief amicus curiae of New York filed.|
|Dec 17 2012||Brief amici curiae of Cayuga County, New York, and Seneca County, New York filed.|
|Dec 17 2012||Brief amici curiae of Citizens Equal Rights Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Jan 16 2013||Brief of respondents Oneida Indian Nation of New York in opposition filed.|
|Jan 29 2013||Reply of petitioners Madison County and Oneida County, New York filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.|
|Feb 19 2013||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|Jun 05 2013||Letter of June 3, 2013, from counsel for petitioners received.|
|Dec 13 2013||Letter of December 13, 2013, from counsel for petitioners received.|
|Mar 11 2014||Motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46 received.|
|Mar 26 2014||Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.|
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.