Yellowstone National Cemetery / Death-row Ruling / Indian Casinos

Missoulian: Veterans cemetery dedicated as national cemetery on Memorial Day
VA Receives Donation for New Yellowstone National Cemetery

“VA’s National Cemetery Administration will begin burial operations at Yellowstone National Cemetery on May 26, 2014.  Effective May 26, Veterans and family members who wish to schedule an interment or inurnment at the cemetery should call the National Cemetery Scheduling Office at 800 535-1117.  VA will manage committal services for burials that were previously scheduled by the City of Laurel, Mont. ”

Yellowstone National Cemetery

Missoulian: High court rules for death-row inmates with low IQ
HALL v. FLORIDA

“After this Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the execution of persons with intellectual disability, see Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 321, Hall asked a Florida state court to vacate his sentence, presenting evidence that included an IQ test score of 71. The court denied his motion, determining that a Florida statute mandated that he show an IQ score of 70 or below before being permitted to present any additional intellectual disability evidence. The State Supreme Court rejected Hall’s appeal, finding the State’s 70-point threshold constitutional.”

Missoulian: Supreme Court says Mich. can't block Indian casino

MICHIGAN v. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY ET AL.

“The State of Michigan, petitioner, entered into a compact with respondent Bay Mills Indian Community pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). See 25 U. S. C. §2710(d)(1)(C). The compact authorizes Bay Mills to conduct class III gaming activities (i.e., to operate a casino) on Indian lands located within the State’s borders, but prohibits it from doing so outside that territory. Bay Mills later opened a second casino on land it had purchased through a congressionally established land trust. The Tribe claimed it could operate a casino there because the property qualified as Indian land. Michigan disagreed and sued the Tribe under §2710(d)(7)(A)(ii), which allows a State to enjoin “class III gaming activity located on Indian lands and conducted in violation of any Tribal-State compact.” The District Court granted the injunction, but the Sixth Circuit vacated. It held that tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit unless Congress provided otherwise, and that §2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) only authorized suits to enjoin gaming activity located “on Indian lands,” whereas Michigan’s complaint alleged the casino was outside such territory.”