Legal Opinion
Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 31, 2015No. Civ. No. 14-cv-0456 (KBJ)PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge
Indian tribes generally operate within a different legal framework than other political entities within the United States. Under federal law, tribes are entitled to certain benefits, including access to federal funding for healthcare, education, and other social programs, 25 U.S.C. § 13, and are also subject to certain restrictions, including a limited right to sell tribal land, 25 U.S.C. § 177. Moreover, because a tribe retains some “inherent sovereign authority” independent of the United States and the state in which it is…
2Cases cited68 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Jones v. BockSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Bennett v. SpearSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- McKoy v. SpencerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017
- Washington v. District of Columbia Housing AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2016
- Kialegee Tribal Town v. ZinkeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Lannett Co. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017
- McNeil v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.