Here are the early materials in Osage Nation v. Irby:
No. 10-__ Appendix Proof 10-21-10
Questions Presented:
In Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984), this Court held that “only Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries,” and Congress’s intent to do so must be “explicit[]” and “unequivocal,” id. at 470-471.
The Questions Presented are:
I. Whether, in determining whether Congress disestablished an Indian reservation, express statutory text, unequivocal legislative history, and the expert view of the Executive Branch are controlling, as the Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have ruled, or whether, instead, other indicia external to the statutory text and federal government’s view, such as modern demographics, can override unambiguous statutory text, as the Tenth Circuit and Seventh Circuit have held.II. Whether the court properly ruled that the Osage Nation’s reservation has been disestablished in the absence of unambiguous statutory direction and without obtaining or considering the position of the United States government.
American Indian Tribal Law
Facing the Future: The Indian Child Welfare Act at 30
Federal Indian Law: Cases and Materials (6th ed.)
The Eagle Returns: The Legal History of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
The Indian Civil Rights Act at Forty
