The House Natural Resources Committee Advances Tribal Buffalo Bill as Interior Restricts Bison Grazing

Wenona Singel

The House Natural Resources Committee is moving to support Tribal buffalo restoration while the BLM is proposing a grazing rule that could make some bison restoration projects harder to sustain on federal land.

On September 15, the House Natural Resources Committee advanced the Don Young Doug LaMalfa Indian Buffalo Management Act. H.R. 7954 would support Tribal buffalo programs, authorize Interior to transfer surplus buffalo from federal land to Indian land, and require Interior’s buffalo management policy for Indian land to follow Tribal laws and Tribally approved plans. Interior has testified in support of the bill.

In May, BLM revoked American Prairie’s permits to graze bison on federal land in Montana, saying the Taylor Grazing Act permits grazing only for livestock managed primarily for production. BLM has also proposed applying a “production-oriented livestock” requirement to BLM grazing permits outside Alaska and eliminating the separate permit provision for indigenous animals. The comment period closed July 13; the rule hasn’t been finalized.

American Prairie’s herd has supplied bison to other herds for food sovereignty, cultural restoration, and hunting. On September 4, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction for the three allotments where its bison already graze, finding American Prairie likely to succeed on its claims. The judge expressly considered the effects of BLM’s decision on American Prairie’s Tribal partners.

The proposed rule would also reach Tribal herds directly. BLM said its American Prairie decision did not affect Tribal grazing authorizations or Tribal bison herds, but the proposed rule contains no Tribal exclusion. When BLM first applied the production-oriented test to American Prairie in January, the Coalition of Large Tribes protested that it would make it unlikely any Tribal herd could qualify for BLM leases, including those the Fort Bidwell Indian Community and Pit River Tribe are seeking for their buffalo. The proposed rule would apply that test to BLM grazing permits outside Alaska, and COLT has objected that it was published without prior Tribal consultation.

The bill wouldn’t decide American Prairie’s case or govern BLM grazing permits. But the case shows why the proposed rule matters to Tribal restoration, since buffalo raised on federal land can be part of bringing buffalo back to Tribal communities.

Related Resources

H.R. 7954

House Natural Resources Committee, September 15 markup announcement

Bureau of Land Management, May 8 permit decision announcement

September 4 preliminary injunction order, American Prairie Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Interior

Coalition of Large Tribes protest letter, January 30, 2026

Disappearing Bison by Starr Hardridge (Muscogee Creek Nation)

Congress Required Assessment of State ICWA Compliance. It Didn’t Tie Shortfalls to Corrective Plans or Funding Consequences

Wenona Singel

In my earlier post today, I wrote that neither S. 4976 nor S. 4638 would require HHS to evaluate each state’s compliance with ICWA. That’s true of the bills, but it leaves out an important piece of existing law.

Congress has already required federal assessment and reporting. 42 U.S.C. § 628d directed HHS to develop an ICWA technical assistance plan by October 1, 2025. The plan must use data sufficient to assess state performance on identifying Indian children, notifying Tribes, transferring cases to Tribal court, and complying with ICWA’s requirements for placements and termination of parental rights. Every two years, HHS must report to Congress on state compliance and federal efforts to improve it.

That framework isn’t fully operating, however. In a report dated July 15, 2026, ACF described the plan as still under development. As of September 23, I couldn’t locate a published plan or an announcement that it had been completed.

Existing federal data is limited. States currently report only four categories of ICWA-related information through AFCARS, and ACF has identified serious reliability problems. A 2024 rule will substantially expand that collection, but states won’t begin collecting the new data until October 1, 2028. The first files containing the new data aren’t due to ACF until May 15, 2029. That leaves the central gap identified by the Commission on Native Children. The Commission didn’t only ask for better information. Recommendation 2 called for improvement plans when states fall short and for progress toward ICWA benchmarks to matter for federal child welfare funding.

Current law doesn’t create that system. States must describe their ICWA measures in their Title IV-B plans, and HHS has general authority to enforce compliance with approved plans. In its 2024 AFCARS rule, however, ACF stated that it has no jurisdiction to impose consequences on states under ICWA, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has told ACF that it has no role in enforcing state compliance either. The law establishes no substantive ICWA performance benchmarks and doesn’t require ICWA-specific corrective plans or funding consequences when a state falls short.

That doesn’t mean any funding penalty would improve compliance. Justice Anne McKeig of the Minnesota Supreme Court told ACF in a 2025 comment that Minnesota law allows the state to reduce federal funding to counties it finds didn’t fully comply with ICWA in the preceding year, sometimes because of a technicality outside the county’s control. She warned that the penalty can deprive a struggling county of the money it needs to provide active efforts. The Commission proposed a more calibrated approach that includes improvement plans with benchmarks, with progress tied either to continued federal funding or to additional incentive funds.

ACF’s consultation report records Tribal recommendations for annual state reporting and actionable improvement plans. It also records a recommendation that states failing to consult with Tribes not receive administrative costs. ACF didn’t commit to those measures.

Ultimately, neither S. 4976 nor S. 4638 closes this gap. Congress has required the federal government to identify where states are falling short, but it hasn’t created the improvement and accountability system the Commission recommended.

An immediate opportunity

ACF is accepting written comments from Tribes for its 2026 Annual Tribal Consultation until 5:00 p.m. ET this Friday, September 25. Comments can be sent to tribalaffairs@acf.hhs.gov with the subject line “ACF Tribal Consultation Testimony.”

Tribal Nations could ask ACF to publish the § 628d plan, state whether and when it was completed, and explain how it will assess and respond to state noncompliance before the expanded AFCARS data become available.

Resources

The Way Forward: Report of the Commission on Native Children

42 U.S.C. § 628d

ACF Tribal Consultation Report (dated July 15, 2026)

Public Comments, Regulations.gov Docket ACF-2025-0038

ACF’s 2024 AFCARS Final Rule

ACF Annual Tribal Consultation Notice

US PTO Rejects Tribal Immunity in Cigarette Trademark Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Philip Morris Inc. v. IP Services International Inc. and Sycuan
Tribal Development Corporation:

PTO DecisionDownload

Briefs:

Sycuan Sovereign Immunity BriefDownload
Philip Morris ResponseDownload
Sycuan ReplyDownload

The Native Children’s Bills Would Fund Tribal Services. What Would They Ask of States?

Wenona Singel

Update, September 23, 2026: This post understated what current federal law already requires. Congress has required federal assessment of state ICWA compliance, but it hasn’t tied shortfalls to corrective plans or funding consequences. See the follow-up post.

In 2024, the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children issued The Way Forward, with 29 recommendations shaped by testimony across Native communities. Several bills now respond to its call for stronger Tribal services. They’d give Tribes more resources to care for children. They wouldn’t add the state ICWA accountability measures the Commission sought in Recommendation 2.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee’s 2025 discussion draft had nine titles, beginning with Child Welfare. The introduced Native Children’s Commission Implementation Act, S. 4976, has eight. Child welfare proposals also appear in the separately introduced Promoting Strong Native Families and Children Act, S. 4638. A third proposal addresses Tribal funding under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or CAPTA. NICWA is urging support for all three.

What the bills carry forward:

  • S. 4976 would codify the family-centered Tiwahe Initiative, expand it beyond ten pilot sites, and authorize $100 million annually. It would also protect recurring Tribal justice base support for Tribes in Public Law 280 states.
  • S. 4638 would increase several Tribal child welfare funding set-asides, create a 5% Tribal allocation in the Social Services Block Grant, and let qualifying Tribes operate a Title IV-E prevention-only program.
  • Those provisions answer significant parts of Recommendation 1, though they don’t provide the full funding parity the Commission envisioned. The separate CAPTA bill addresses another part of that recommendation.

Where S. 4976 stops short:

  • Recommendation 29 called for a government-wide Native data and research office. The bill proposes a Tribal Health Research Office at NIH.
  • Recommendation 23 called for screening places Native children frequent for toxic exposures and providing an assessment when a patient or parent requests one. The bill would build environmental health training and referral systems, but wouldn’t require either measure.
  • Recommendation 14 asked Congress to fund afterschool programs for Native children. The bill would allow afterschool programming under existing grants without providing new funding.

What remains outside these bills: Recommendation 2 called for HHS to assess how states implement ICWA and promote improvement. It also proposed specialized ICWA courts and enforceable plans to preserve a child’s connection to their Native community after adoption by a non-Native family. Those measures matter when a state fails to identify a child’s Tribe, involve it in the case, or sustain the child’s connections after adoption. None of the three bills adds them.

A 2024 ACF rule requires states to report additional ICWA-related data through AFCARS. NICWA is pressing for its full implementation and notes that the data will help ACF meet its existing duty to report to Congress on state ICWA compliance. The rule will provide data the federal government has long lacked. Neither S. 4976 nor S. 4638 would require HHS to evaluate each state’s compliance with ICWA or require a state to improve when it falls short. The Commission also recommended tying a state’s progress to its federal child welfare funding; neither bill does that.

Resources

The Way Forward: Report of the Alyce Spotted Bear & Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children (February 2024)

Native Children’s Commission Implementation Act of 2026, S. 4976

Promoting Strong Native Families and Children Act, S. 4638

American Indian and Alaska Native Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, S. 4179

American Indian and Alaska Native Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, H.R. 8048

ACF’s 2024 AFCARS final rule on ICWA-related data collection

NICWA’s September 2026 Native Child and Family Policy Update

NICWA’s written comments for ACF’s 2026 Annual Tribal Consultation

The Way Forward, the February 2024 report
of the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter
Soboleff Commission on Native Children.

2027 National NALSA Writing Competition Details

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the website:

27th Annual National NALSA Writing Competition

The goal of the National NALSA Writing Competition is to encourage law students to become involved with National NALSA and increase awareness and education regarding legal issues that impact Native Nations, Tribal organizations, and Indigenous communities and people.

This year, the Competition will be hosted by the Michigan Law Review Online!

Michigan Law Review Online is the online-exclusive counterpart of the Michigan Law Review, one of the oldest and most prestigious legal scholarship journals in the country. MLR Online places emphasis on timely legal scholarship and, in accord with that goal, has an expedited production process compared to most other journals.

Submissions are now being accepted! The gist? Here you go:

  • 4,000–8,000 words (Yes—you read that right. A much shorter writing requirement than traditional law review Notes and Articles; after all, our goal is to make legal scholarship ACCESSIBLE!);
  • Deadline: March 19, 2027; and
  • One of the best law journals in the country.

All of the rest of the nitty gritty details can be found at the link below for the 2027 NNALSA Writing Competition Rules.

This year, Manuel Lewis (Gila River Indian Community, first descendant) is serving as the Writing Competition Administrator. He is an Executive Online Editor of the Michigan Law Review and can be contacted at writingcompetition@nationalnalsa.org if you have any questions!

D.C. Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Comanche & Otoe-Missouria Compact Amendments

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Cherokee Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

223-1 Plaintiff Nations MSJ.pdfDownload
224 Oklahoma AG Amicus Brief.pdfDownload
226-1 Comanche MSJ.pdfDownload
228 Comanche Response to 228.pdfDownload
229-1 Otoe-Missouria Cross Motion.pdfDownload
230-1 Federal Cross Motion.pdfDownload
233-1 Oklahoma Governor Cross Motion.pdfDownload
239 Plaintiff Nations’ Reply.pdfDownload
244 Federal Reply.pdfDownload
245 Comanche Reply.pdfDownload
246 Otoe-Missouria Reply.pdfDownload
256 DCT Opinion.pdfDownload

Prior post here.

From the Archives: Cherokee Language Hub offers Hundreds of Recordings and Stories for the next generation of Cherokee speakers

Wenona Singel

From the Hub:

The Cherokee Language Hub is both a learning resource and an archive of our written and oral language. You will find recordings, lessons, and stories passing on history and cultural memories to the next generation.

Saving the Voices

At over 1100 hours, this extraordinary collection is a lasting record of spoken Cherokee, preserving the language used to describe the world the elders knew. Each of the interviews is transcribed to Cherokee syllabary, translated to English, and brought to life in the Cherokee Language Hub to be carried across generations.

Access the Cherokee Language Hub here.

AI Governance Is a Tribal Sovereignty Project, Not Just an Employee Policy

Wenona Singel



Recent warnings that AI is advancing faster than government can control it have focused on threats to jobs, democracy, and even humanity. Whatever you might think of the most extreme predictions, AI needs guardrails and too few jurisdictions are responding. For tribes, that’s a sovereignty question.

The Cherokee Nation’s AI policy and Data Sovereignty and Governance Task Force report⁠ offers an important model of executive action. But Tribes aren’t merely employers. Sure, they purchase technology, control data and resources, own businesses, and manage employees, but they also legislate, regulate, prosecute, adjudicate, provide remedies, and negotiate with other governments.

Tribes can begin to take action by inventorying AI uses and assessing risks to citizens, elections, decision-making processes, Indigenous data, cultural knowledge, jurisdiction, treaty rights, and future generations. One possible approach is to use a sequence like below, with steps that will overlap and that can proceed in parallel:

continuous risk assessment → executive policy → employment, contracting, and procurement protections → administrative capacity → Tribal legislation creating rights, duties, oversight, and remedies → Tribal enforcement and remedies → intergovernmental and external enforcement

Jurisdictional limits matter, especially when vendors, data, or harmful actors are beyond a Tribe’s reach. But those limits make contracts and intergovernmental agreements more important; they don’t justify inaction. The magnitude of the risks also requires inter-Tribal coordination and resource-sharing between Tribes.

The question isn’t simply how Tribal employees should use AI. It’s how Tribal governments will exercise sovereignty over it.

Some Useful Resources

Cherokee Nation Data Sovereignty and Governance Task Force Report. Provides a Tribal-specific example of executive policy development, institutional assessment, data sovereignty, cybersecurity, and AI governance.

NIST Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework. Offers a structured method that Tribes can adapt to identify, measure, manage, and monitor AI risks.

CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Adds an Indigenous-specific framework centered on collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics.

GovAI Coalition Templates and Resources for Public Agencies. Supplies practical policy, procurement, assessment, and vendor review tools that Tribes can revise to reflect Tribal law, values, jurisdiction, and sovereign immunity.