The “long conference” is next Monday, and so the 2011 Term is under way. Here are the cases that are on the radar, with an emphasis on the petitions on the agenda for Monday.
Petitions Slated for the Long Conference:
Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County (No. 10-1420) and United States v. New York (10-1404), involving the Oneida land claims and Sherrill, is already a petition to watch. The fact that the federal government filed a petition is huge, but the Court has denied similar petitions….
Navajo Nation v. EEOC (No. 10-981) and Peabody Western Coal Co. v. EEOC (No. 10-986), along with EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co. (No. 10-1080), a conditional cross-petition. This case involves the long-running Navajo tribal employment preference act. Although labeled a petition to watch, the feds are opposing the main petitions, and this one will be denied. A Rule 19 case.
Petitions Slated for Later Conferences:
Arctic Slope Native Assn. v. Sebelius (No. 11-33). This petition involving contract support costs under the Indian Self-Determination Act has a strong chance, with a circuit split between the Federal Circuit (here) and the Tenth Circuit (here and perhaps here).
Salazar v. Patchak (No. 11-247) and Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak (No. 11-246). This one has already been slated a “petition to watch.” The federal government’s effort to protect federal immunity under the Quiet Title Act is almost certain to be granted.
Gila River Indian Community v. Lyon (No. 11-80). Like the EEOC case, a Rule 19 case. One of these days, the SCT will hear a Rule 19 case where an Indian tribe is the missing indispensable party.
Seneca Telephone v. Miami Tribe (No. 11-183). Any case with tribal sovereign immunity as the backdrop has a chance, but this one has no split and no real major issue.
Reed v. Gutierrez (No. 10-1390). Another immunity case, even less likely to be granted than Seneca Telephone, given that Kiowa completely controls this one without doubt.
Corboy v. Louie (No. 11-336). Any petition involving the Native Hawaiians is bound to attract some Justices’ attention, but this one is being brought by tax protesters, not a favored party in the Supreme Court.
Evans v. Wapato Heritage (No. 11-215).