Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014): The Supreme Court held that tribal sovereign immunity protects a tribe from suit for operating a casino outside Indian lands. [26] In her majority opinion, Justice Kagan cited Santa Clara for the proposition that in spite of federal plenary power, tribes remain separate sovereigns who pre-exist ...
Tribal Sovereignty, Tribal Immunity Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies , 523 U.S. 751 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Indian Nation were entitled to sovereign immunity from contract lawsuits, whether made on or off reservation, or involving governmental or commercial activities.
Pages in category "Supreme Court of the Philippines cases" The following 23 pages are in this category, out of 23 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. B.
This is a list of U.S. Supreme Court cases involving Native American Tribes.Included in the list are Supreme Court cases that have a major component that deals with the relationship between tribes, between a governmental entity and tribes, tribal sovereignty, tribal rights (including property, hunting, fishing, religion, etc.) and actions involving members of tribes.
In 2010, in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v Madison County, NY, the Second Circuit held that tribal sovereign immunity barred a tax foreclosure suit against the tribe for unpaid taxes. [17] As urged by concurring judges José A. Cabranes and Peter W. Hall, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. [18]
Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh Amendment (1795) re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably. In Blatchford v.
In 1909, in the case of Cariño vs. Insular Government, [1] the court has recognized long occupancy of land by an Indigenous member of the cultural communities as one of private ownership (which, in legal concept, is termed "native title"). This case paved the way for the government to review the so-called "native title" or "private right."
Suquamish Indian Tribe, the Supreme Court, in a 6–2 opinion authored by Justice William Rehnquist, concluded that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Indians (the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at that time, Warren Burger, and Justice Thurgood Marshall filed a dissenting opinion). But the case left unanswered some questions ...