|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-387||Wash.||Mar 21, 2018||May 21, 2018||7-2||Gorsuch||OT 2017|
Holding: County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 502 U. S. 251, addressed only a question of statutory interpretation of the Indian General Allotment Act of 1887, not the question whether Indian tribes have sovereign immunity in in rem lawsuits. The Lundgrens now ask the Supreme Court to affirm on an alternative, common-law ground: that the tribe cannot assert sovereign immunity because this suit relates to immovable property located in Washington state, purchased by the tribe in the same manner as a private individual. Because this alternative argument did not emerge until late in this case, the Washington Supreme Court should address it in the first instance.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on May 21, 2018. Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 11 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 13, 2017)|
|Oct 13 2017||Brief of respondents Sharline Lundgren and Ray Lundgren in opposition filed.|
|Oct 27 2017||Reply of petitioner Upper Skagit Indian Tribe filed.|
|Nov 01 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/21/2017.|
|Nov 17 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Nov 27 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/1/2017.|
|Dec 04 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2017.|
|Dec 08 2017||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 22 2018||Brief of petitioner Upper Skagit Indian Tribe filed.|
|Jan 22 2018||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jan 24 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 21, 2018|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of Cayuga Nation, Seneca Nation of Indians, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Cherokee Nation, Pueblo of Pojoaque filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, and Skokomish Indian Tribe filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of States of Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico, and Texas filed in Support of Neither Party|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief amici curiae of National Congress of American Indians, et al. filed.|
|Feb 07 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 21 2018||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Washington.|
|Feb 21 2018||Brief of respondents Sharline Lundgren and Ray Lundgren filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2018||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Feb 28 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Public Service Company of New Mexico filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2018||Brief amici curiae of Village of Union Springs, Town of Springport, Cayuga County filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Seneca County, New York filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 12 2018||Reply of petitioner Upper Skagit Indian Tribe filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 16 2018||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Mar 21 2018||Argued. For petitioner: David S. Hawkins, Sedro-Woolley, Wash.; and Ann O’Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Eric D. Miller, Seattle, Wash.|
|May 21 2018||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined.|
|Jun 22 2018||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jun 22 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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.