Torey Dolan on the Indian Law Aunties

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Torey Dolan has published “The Indian Law Aunties” in the UMKC Law Review.

An excerpt:

American Indian women in the legal academy have stepped in to fight this persistent othering and invisibility in the law: through service, scholarship, and tenacious advocacy. In doing so, they have created Indigenous feminist spaces
whereby Native people can resist intellectual and social assimilation to varying degrees. Sarah Deer (Muscogee Nation) argued prophetically in 2019, “to cultivate future feminist interventions in Indian law, I contend we must do more to recruit and support Native women law students, and, ultimately, more Native women law professors.” In Native communities, “auntie” is a term of endearment for Indigenous women, often women who take positions of leadership: cultural, social, professional, or otherwise. The term encompasses blood relatives but also extends beyond them to accommodate expansive Indigenous philosophies of kinship and community care. As Laurel Goodluck (Tsimshian Tribe) describes her children’s book “Fierce Aunties,” aunties come in a variety of shapes, sizes, experiences, and backgrounds, but what these fierce aunties share is “[they] see you, they know you, and they love all of you, always.” Aunties are who you go to for guidance, advice, support, and courage. Native women entering the legal academy today are heirs to a generation of Native aunties who have toiled to build communities and infrastructures to support Native students and Indian law education. I call them the “Indian law aunties.” Native women in the legal academy (the “Indian law aunties”) resist invisibility through labor, advocacy, and institution-building for the Native women coming into law behind them. They have paved the way for future generations of Native women scholars through their unapologetically indigenous feminist interventions. This Essay seeks to name the othering and disappearing of Native women within U.S. settler colonialism, contextualize the invisibility of Native women in the academy, honor the interventions of the Indian law aunties, and advocate for a more equitable future where the labor is not theirs alone.

Some NDN law aunties.

This article comes from a symposium on women in legal education.

Federal Circuit Affirms Rejection of Federal Liability for Shooting of Ute Tribal Citizen

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Jones v. United States.

Briefs:

Opening Brief.pdfDownload
US Answer Brief.pdfDownload
Reply.pdfDownload

Prior posts here and here.

Amended Complaint in Apache Stronghold v. United States

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

184 Amended Complaint.pdfDownload
We all need friends.

California Federal Court Finds Federal Court Jurisdiction in Effort to Enforce Tribal Court Judgment

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in McClamary v. D&L Real Estate Enterprises LLC (C.D. Cal.):

1 Notice of Removal.pdfDownload
1-8 State Court Complaint.pdfDownload
1-9 Order Dismissing State Court Complaint.pdfDownload
1-10 Fischer v Moscato Opinion.pdfDownload
8 Answer.pdfDownload
9 Opposition.pdfDownload
29 Motion to Remand.pdfDownload
30 Opposition to 29.pdfDownload
32 Reply ISO 29.pdfDownload
37 DCT Order.pdfDownload

Tenth Circuit Affirms Drug Conviction Arising from Tribal Court Issued Search Warrant

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Holt.

Briefs:

Appellant Brief.pdfDownload
Appellee Brief.pdfDownload

Blast from the Past: Reid Chambers Paper on the Bill to Establish Indian Trust Counsel Authority

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Reid Chambers on Federal Conflicts of InterestDownload

Blast from the Past: 1979 Federal Report on the History of the Trust Responsibility . . . Cribbed from Vine Deloria Report

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Brief History of the Trust ResponsibilityDownload

New Scholarship on Indian Status Cases in North Carolina

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Daniel G. Sullivan has published “When You’re Just Not “Indian” Enough: The Erosion of Tribal Sovereignty in State v. Nobles and the Case for Deference to Tribes on Questions of Indian Status” in the North Carolina Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

Under the Major Crimes Act, Tribes and the federal government have exclusive jurisdiction over certain “major crimes” committed by an “Indian” in “Indian Country.” In 2012, George Nobles—a “First Descendant” of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians—was arrested for robbery and murder on the tribal trust lands of the Eastern Band. Defined by Cherokee law, First Descendants have at least one parent who is a tribal member but are themselves one generation short of the Tribe’s blood quantum requirement for membership. At the time of Nobles’s arrest, First Descendants were recognized by the Eastern Band as “Indian” under Cherokee common and statutory law. Thus, under the Major Crimes Act, only the Eastern Band or the federal government should have been able to prosecute Nobles. Both crimes were “major,” both took place in Indian Country, and Nobles—as a First Descendant—was Indian.

But in State v. Nobles, the Supreme Court of North Carolina concluded that Nobles was just not Indian enough and authorized state jurisdiction. And in doing so, the court overrode a determination that was the Tribe’s to make. State v. Nobles contradicts fundamental precepts of federal Indian law and strikes at the sovereignty of the Eastern Band and similarly-situated Tribes. Where Indian status refers to the political relationship between an individual and a particular Tribe, that Tribe must have the final word on questions of Indian status. Part I of this Comment introduces State v. Nobles and explores Indian Country jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act. Part II sets forth three principles of federal Indian law against which the facts of Nobles must be viewed and argues that these principles demand deference to Tribes on Indian status. Part III uses these principles to discuss the errors in Nobles. Lastly, Part IV argues that deference to Tribes on Indian status is necessary for robust tribal sovereignty and proposes a more cabined use of the “Rogers test” for Indian status consistent with that understanding.

Tenth Circuit Allows IGRA Suit by Comanche against Fort Sill to Proceed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Comanche Nation v. Ware.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Ninth Circuit Rejects Federal En Banc Petition in Sho-Ban v. DOI but Some Judges Have Thoughts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order and accompanying, dueling opinions in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Dept. of the Interior.

En banc stage briefs:

US En Banc Petition

Tribal Response to En Banc Petition

Panel materials here.