Proof in Trial: Appellate Edition: Stand Up for California et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al.
McGirt Uncertainty Extends to Federal Environmental Regulations in Indian Country
Revisiting McGirt: New Legal Developments Challenge Oklahoma’s Landmark Ruling
The Immediate and Lasting Impacts of McGirt: A Novel Ruling for Oklahoma
B&D is pleased to present the final installment of our 2024 Litigation Look Ahead series. (Read part five covering the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act here.) In this edition, our...more
On Oct. 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request to extend the stay ordered in West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. Haaland. It is unclear if any justice supported the request to extend the stay. This means that West...more
On Oct. 12, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a stay on the District of Columbia Circuit’s ruling in West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. Haaland. This stay will prevent, for now, the Seminole Tribe of Florida from accepting...more
On June 22, 2023, the United States Supreme Court handed down its third decision regarding federal Indian law this term. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Navajo Treaty of 1868 does not require the United States to...more
In a highly unwelcome decision for Native tribes relying on treaties with the U.S. government, the U.S. Supreme Court held recently that the government’s general trust obligation to Navajo Nation does not require the federal...more
On June 22, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation, No. 21-1484, holding that the Federal government is not responsible for taking affirmative steps to help the Navajo Nation secure access to...more
On June 22, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Arizona v. Navajo Nation, No. 21-1484, limiting the federal government’s obligation to affirmatively secure water for federally recognized Indian tribes. The...more
3M announced on Thursday that it has reached a $10.3 billion settlement with many U.S. public water systems to resolve water pollution claims tied to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as “PFAS.”...more
On June 22, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Navajo Nation, No. 21-1484, holding that the federal government is not obligated to affirmatively secure access to water for the Navajo Nation....more
With four decisions yesterday, the Court has now cut its backlog down to the mid-teens. And with decisions likely today as well, the Court is well on its way to clearing the docket as the term ends....more
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, on June 29, that the Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against...more
U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING DEALS BLOW TO TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY - In stunning disregard of over 200 years of precedent (dating back to the 1823 landmark case Worcester v. Georgia), on June 29, 2022, via Oklahoma v....more
On June 29, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429, holding that the State of Oklahoma has concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian...more
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429: This case involves whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in “Indian country.” The defendant was convicted in Oklahoma state court of...more
In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Native American defendant who was previously prosecuted in a special federal administrative tribal court can be charged in a federal court for the same incident...more
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573: This case involves the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) preemption of a California law invalidating contractual waivers of the right to assert certain representative claims....more
On April 26, 2022, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a significant unanimous decision addressing the applicability of a state ad valorem property tax on a power plant located on Indian land. The Arizona Supreme Court held that...more
Oklahoma v. Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429: This case presents the following question: Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in “Indian country.”...more
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, No. 20-493: Whether the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act provides the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited...more
On June 1, in a landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unanimously that tribal police officers have the authority to temporarily detain and search non-Natives on public rights-of-way through Indian lands if they are...more
On June 1, 2021, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Cooley, No. 19-1414, holding that Indian tribe police officers retain authority to search and temporarily detain suspected non-Indian criminals on public...more
The United States Supreme Court held unanimously in United States v. Cooley, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), that Indian tribes possess inherent authority to detain temporarily and to search non-Indian persons traveling on public...more
Three months on from the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, the fallout is becoming increasingly clear in Oklahoma. On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in McGirt, ruling that most of the eastern...more
On July 9, the U.S. Supreme Court made waves in McGirt v. Oklahoma by overturning a criminal conviction imposed upon a Native American defendant under Oklahoma law. The primary reasons for overturning the conviction were that...more
On July 9, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held in McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for purposes of the Major Crimes Act (MCA), land in eastern Oklahoma reserved for the Creek Nation pursuant to a treaty ratified by Congress...more