Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States (14-510)

argument 14-510

Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 41 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What legal question does the Supreme Court face in Menominee Tribe v. United States?

Stephen G. Breyer 0:01

We'll hear argument next in case fourteen five ten, Menominee Indian tribe of

William M. Strahmer 0:05

Wisconsin versus the United States. Mr Strawmer. Mr Chief Justice, may it please the Court. The facts in this case are very complex, but the legal question that is presented to you today is relatively straightforward. to state. And the legal question is whether or not An individual or an entity that reasonably relies on class action tolling. Can If tolling is found to be ineffective at a later date. then rely on the same facts to argue that equitable tolling under Holland should apply. In the Irwin case, this court specifically cross referenced American type as an example of a defective pleading. that could satisfy equitable tolling, American pipe obviously being a class action tolling rule. We read that cross reference as a suggestion that under the right circumstances, if somebody reasonably relies on class action tolling facts that ultimately prove to be ineffective, that that individual has the ability to ask the court to find that equitable tolling should apply.

William M. Strahmer 1:16

If there is such a case, the facts of this case really should satisfy this test. The test is set forth in the Holland case. Due diligence and extraordinary circumstances are the two prongs that have to be satisfied. Both of them are well satisfied in this case. First. The Menominee tribe relied on a pre existing class action which dealt with almost identical substantive claims against The United States.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:43

Are you talking about the Rama?

William M. Strahmer 1:45

Yes, correct, Justice Ginsburg.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:49

Unpublished decision by a district court It never went any further.

How does the argument explain the concept of class‑action tolling?

William M. Strahmer 1:55

Well it is still a certified class, Justice Ginberg, and the Menominee tribe uh not only is a member of that class, but has to date received a portion of several settlements that were entered into in that class action, and in fact is poised to receive another large payment in a settlement that the class and the United States have asked to approve.

Elena Kagan 2:17

The issue that that case settled or addressed was whether exhaustion was required at all. Minimal research would have shown That every other court at that time. who had addressed the issue. had required exhaustion. Now we'll go later to exhaustion when, that's a separate question. So how could you reasonably rely on a lower court decision that hasn't gone through the crucible Of a pellet review. without having done any research on whether its premises were subject to dispute. reasonable dispute. And rely on that.

William M. Strahmer 3:03

Well Justice Sotomayor, I have a couple of answers to your question. First of all, Uh the United States did not challenge the certification of the class. in the Rhema case. Not when it was originally certified, based on the claims that were then in the case, miscalculation claims, nor later on when they were.

Elena Kagan 3:25

that the re exhaustion requirement didn't meet the the Uh commonality. prong of class certification. So they did make an argument

William M. Strahmer 3:37

against it. Oh they argued, but the district court judge in the Rhema case, reasonably we think, concluded that because of the unique nature of the claims that the Rhema class was seeking to be a very important thing to do. I know that's

Elena Kagan 3:49

what you believe, but every other court up until that time had said no, you need it to exhaust. Now we can go to a separate question of exhaust when later. But how could you at that point Rely on that case. to think that you didn't have to

William M. Strahmer 4:08

well the Menomini tribe didn't rely just on that case. That case was an important factor that it relied on. But there was Also, other factors that it relied on. In the Cherokee Nation certification process, the United States did not raise presentment as a defense. Instead, it raised Rule 23 grounds as a basis not to certify the class. And the district court judge in that case, on garden variety Rule 23 grounds, ruled that that case could not be certified. Didn't say anything in his order about the out presentment, jurisdiction, did not talk about that whatsoever. And in fact, in his ruling he specifically said that if a class had been certified, it would have been easy to identify all of the tribes in the country that would have been members because