No. 18-7033
Michael Casey Jackson v. United States
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: congress district-court federal-indian-law indian-country judicial-restoration land-relinquishment land-rights native-american-lands native-americans reservation-status separation-of-powers statutory-interpretation treaty-rights
Key Terms:
Patent
Patent
Latest Conference:
2019-04-12
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a district court judge can restore lands relinquished by treaty to Native Americans
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether or Not a District Court Judge Can Restor Lands That By TREATY Were Relinquished By indians to the United States All Claims and Rights They Possessed. Can He or She (They) RESTORE those Lands That Were Relinguished Then Sold or Disposed of Back to Reservation Status or “Indian Country” Without it Being an Act of Congress. -i‘
Docket Entries
2019-07-15
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-06-20
DISTRIBUTED.
2019-05-06
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-04-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-03-21
Reply of petitioner Michael Jackson filed. (Distributed)
2019-03-08
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2019-01-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 8, 2019.
2019-01-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 6, 2019 to March 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-01-07
Response Requested. (Due February 6, 2019)
2018-12-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.
2018-12-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-11-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 14, 2019)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent