Here are the new materials in Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
Prior post here.
D.C. Federal Court Rules in Favor of Coquille Trust Land Acquisition
CFC Dismisses Takings Claim of Confiscated Hemp Products from Standing Rock Rez
Here are the materials in Luger v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
What the Record Shows: ACF’s Head Start Rulemaking, More Than 9,200 Comments, and a Tribal Consultation Ahead
More than 9,200 comments were submitted on the Administration for Children and Families’ proposed Head Start rewrite by September 6, 2026. 46 of them discussed Tribal programs, Tribal languages, Indigenous children, or other Tribal concerns. But none could be verified from the public record as having been submitted by a Tribe, Tribal organization, or Tribal Head Start provider.
That may soon change. The Office of Head Start has scheduled a virtual Tribal consultation specifically on the proposed rule for September 16, 2026, from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. ET. Tribal leaders and their representatives may provide testimony regarding the proposed changes and their implications for American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start programs, children, families, and communities. Testimony will be included in the proposed rule’s public comment record unless the Tribe or individual providing it requests otherwise.
A signed letter authorizing a representative to speak for a Tribe is due September 11. Written testimony may be submitted to AIANHeadStart@acf.hhs.gov through October 6. Registration and additional information are available here.
As of September 6, therefore, the publicly visible docket contained other people’s descriptions of Tribal interests, but no identifiable submission from the Tribal governments and providers that operate the affected programs. The September 16 consultation offers an important opportunity to change that record.
The Office of Head Start also conducted its regularly scheduled Tribal Head Start consultation on June 18, 2026 before this proposed rule was published. ACF’s preamble says the proposal reflects feedback received over time from Head Start leadership, “including Tribal leaders,” but it doesn’t identify the Tribal leaders consulted about these particular changes or explain how their views shaped the proposal.
What ACF is Proposing
ACF’s proposed rule, Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs, would replace much of the existing Head Start Program Performance Standards with a substantially shorter set of regulations. Among other changes, the proposal would:
- Reduce the administrative cost cap from 15% to 5%, subject to a waiver process
- Remove federal staff-child ratios and class size limits in favor of other applicable standards
- Eliminate or reduce requirements governing staff qualifications, professional development, coaching, and caseloads
- Remove or reduce requirements for health, developmental, dental, mental health, and family services
- Reduce requirements for home visits, program duration, parent committees, and community assessments
- Change eligibility documentation and enrollment requirements
- Require education to be conducted in English, with an exception allowing an Indian Head Start agency to use a Tribal language when doing so is related to “the furtherance of tribal heritage.”
Some provisions recognize Tribal circumstances or preserve existing Tribal flexibility. But the rule as a whole would apply to Tribal Head Start programs, not just the provisions that specifically reference Tribal Head Start. The Tribal language exception and the operation of Tribal Head Start programs in general should be considered together with the 5% administrative cost cap, elimination of federal standards, and changes to health, staffing, eligibility, governance, and home visiting requirements.
The proposal also raises a distinct jurisdictional question. ACF frequently presents deregulation as a choice between federal requirements and state or local control. Tribal Head Start programs don’t always fit that binary. If a federal regulatory standard disappears and particular Tribal Head Start program is not subject to state child care licensing, what becomes the governing minimum? Does Tribal law control? Does the proposed rule consistently recognize Tribal licensing and regulatory authority? Or does it create uncertainty for Tribes where the federal government claims to be creating flexibility?
What Other Commenters are Saying about Tribal Head Start Programs
I reviewed the 9,233 public submissions included in a regulations.gov bulk download that I obtained on September 6. I identified 46 comments that expressly discussed Tribal, American Indian, Alaska Native, Indigenous, reservation, or Tribal-program concerns.
Those comments repeatedly raised several issues:
- The 5 percent administrative cost cap. Commenters warned that the cap could fall especially heavily on small, rural, and Tribal programs, which cannot spread fixed costs for audits, payroll, human resources, technology, facilities, and federal compliance across large enrollments or multiple locations.
- Tribal languages and cultural continuity. Many commenters invoked Tribal language preservation to oppose the proposed English-instruction requirement. (The exception permitting use of Tribal language is limited to Indian Head Start programs.) Several connected language to identity, family relationships, intergenerational transmission, and cultural survival.
- Assimilation and boarding school history. Some commenters described English-only education as language erasure or compared it to the forced assimilation of Indigenous children in Indian boarding schools.
- Reservation geography and service access. Commenters identified rural and Tribal communities as particularly dependent on home visiting, transportation, and flexible service delivery systems.
- Consultation and participation. Several urged ACF to work with Tribal Nations, Tribal communities, or Tribal organizations before changing the standards.
- Child care and workforce infrastructure. Commenters described Tribal Head Start as essential not only to children’s education and health, but also to parents’ ability to work and to the economic stability of Tribal communities.
One unidentified commenter asked how Tribal child care subsidy payments would be included, noting that Tribal subsidy rates were even lower than state rates.
These comments recognize many important problems. What they generally can’t supply is evidence that Tribes possess that establish the scale, operation, and legal significance of these problems.
- Non-Tribal commenters can predict that the 5% administrative cost cap will harm Tribal programs, but they can’t document a Tribal program’s existing administrative costs, or the positions and services that would be lost under the proposed cap.
- Non-Tribal commenters can invoke the importance of teaching Tribal languages, but they can’t determine whether the proposed exception adequately protects immersion programs, intertribal classrooms, urban Native children, or how it interacts with a Tribe’s own language and education laws.
- They can mention the challenges of access to Tribal Head Start programs given reservation geography, but Tribes are in the best position to establish what home visiting, transportation, health coordination, and workforce recruitment actually require.
Tribal interests are not absent from the docket. But as of September 6, identifiable Tribally authored comments, and the financial, governmental, cultural, and operational evidence that Tribes themselves are uniquely positioned to provide, was absent.
What the Record Still Needs
Tribal governments, Tribal organizations, and Tribal Head Start providers are uniquely positioned to tell ACF:
- What percentage of their budgets currently qualifies as administrative costs.
- How a 5% administrative cost cap would interact with negotiated indirect-cost rates and shared Tribal-government services.
- Which staff positions, services, or enrollment slots would be affected.
- Whether reliance on the Tribal language exception offers meaningful protection, how broadly it applies, and who determines whether language furthers Tribal heritage.
- Which statutory, Tribal, state, or other standards would govern when particular federal regulatory requirements are removed.
- How reservation geography and remoteness affect transportation, home visiting, facilities, workforce recruitment, and access to health and mental health providers.
- How the proposed changes would interact with Tribal health, education, licensing, and child care systems
- Whether the Tribal language exception protects the language models Tribes actually use.
- Who should determine whether instruction furthers Tribal heritage.
- Whether the proposal is consistent with the Head Start Act, the Native American Languages Act, Tribal law, federal consultation requirements, and the federal trust responsibility.
- Whether ACF’s Tribal consultation was timely, adequate, and capable of influencing the proposed rule.
The existing comments frequently address Tribal programs, but the docket still needs evidence from the Tribal governments and providers that operate them.
Comments are due October 6, 2026. The public docket is available here.
A note on method: This review covers the 9,233 public submissions included in a regulations.gov bulk download obtained September 6, 2026, covering comments submitted in response to ACF-2026-0595-0001 and ACF-2026-0595-0002. The bulk download includes a Government Agency Type field that lets a submitter self-identify as a federal, state, local, or Tribal government; none of the 9,233 submissions had this field populated as Tribal, or, in fact, populated at all, for any government type. 46 submissions expressly addressed Tribal, American Indian, Alaska Native, Indigenous, reservation, or Tribal program issues, based on a keyword search of the comment text included in that download. That search could not reach the substance of 4,678 submissions, just over half the docket, whose comment field contains only a placeholder (“See Attached”) pointing to an attachment file not included in the bulk download; those attachments were not separately reviewed. No submission could be verified from the available metadata, comment text, or the Government Agency Type field as filed by a Tribe, Tribal organization, or Tribal Head Start provider, but that finding necessarily reflects only the roughly half of the docket whose substance was available for review. A Tribal government, organization, or provider could be among the submissions whose content appears solely in an unreviewed attachment. This review also predates the Tribal consultation scheduled for September 16; testimony from that consultation will become part of the public comment record unless its inclusion is declined.
Akwesasne Governments Reject “Lake America” Across the International Border
From a statement posted by the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and published on Sept. 4:
AKWESASNE — (Seskehkó:wa/September 1, 2026) The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (SRMT) and Mohawk Council of Akwesasne (MCA) stand together in opposition to the recent Executive Order issued by the current United States administration seeking to rename Lake Ontario as “Lake America.”
The name Ontario is widely understood to be derived from an Iroquoian word, often transcribed as ontarí:io, or similar spellings in historical records. The word has been interpreted as meaning “great lake”, “beautiful lake”, or “sparkling water”.
More importantly, the name predates the creation of Canada and United States. European explorers adopted an existing indigenous name for the lake and the name was later applied to the province when Ontario was established in 1867.
For the Kanien’kehá:ka, however, the lake is known as Kaniatari:io, often translated as “Beautiful/nice lake.” This name reflects our own language, worldview, and enduring relationship with the lake.
These names are not simply words on a map to our people. They carry our languages, histories and responsibilities to the lands and waters since time immemorial.
For Akwesasronon, the international boundary is a present-day reality that came long after our ancestors’ presence here. Akwesasne territory extends across both Canada and the United States, and is a stark reminder that our people were here long before either country was established. Replacing a name derived from one of the original languages of these lands with one intended to assert a modern national identity disregards that Indigenous history.
What has carried meaning for generations should not be rewritten to satisfy the politics of a moment.
Governments and administrations will change. Our language, our history and our relationship with these lands and waters will remain.
The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and Mohawk Council of Akwesasne will continue to recognize the history and Indigenous origins of Lake Ontario and uphold the Kanien’kehá relationship with Kaniatari:io.
No act of government can erase that relationship.
Our earlier post on this topic is here.
Tribal Innovations Update: Chickasaw Nation Begins Construction on 160-acre Health Campus
The medical campus will include twelve buildings, a hospital, an outpatient clinic, and more than twenty-three specialties.
From the Chickasaw Nation press release:
Upon completion, the facility will grow to include a nearly 2.5 million-square-foot medical campus with 140 inpatient beds and will employ more than 5,500 staff. It is expected to serve more than 100,000 First Americans in the region.
“This campus will do things most hospitals cannot. We are building medical residencies, training the next generation of doctors right here in Oklahoma, and in Newcastle,” Governor Anoatubby said. “We are building a First American research center owned and operated by a tribal nation, the first of its kind anywhere in the country.”
Happy Labor Day
Photographer David Grant Noble took a series of photos of Mohawk ironworkers in New York City in 1970. The workers were from Kahnawake Reserve. Below is a slideshow of his pictures.
Slideshow – Mohawk Steelworker Series
In 1971, Noble was also invited to accompany Anishinaabeg from the Bad River Reservation in Wisconsin for a day of gathering wild rice. On another occasion, he visited the Nett lake community in Minnesota during their wild rice harvest, where he accompanied Ira Isham and his family. Below is a slideshow of Noble’s photos from the manoomin harvest in both Tribal communities.
David Grant Noble at http://www.davidgrantnoble.com
Click here to see the manoomin harvest slideshow.
Tribal Courts in Action: Northern Cheyenne Court Rules on the Relationship Between the Tribal Constitution and Traditional Authority
The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court recently granted partial summary judgment in a case arising from a dispute between Northern Cheyenne Traditional Chiefs invoking asserted traditional authority and members of the Tribe’s elected Council.
Judge Frans Andersson held that the September 10, 2025 Chiefs’ Declaration, which purported to remove eight elected Council members, was void and had no legal effect. Because those officials had never lawfully been removed, the court also concluded that the subsequent special election could not create a lawful replacement Council. The defendants were ordered to “immediately peaceably surrender” control of the Council offices and government resources to the plaintiff Council members.
What’s especially interesting is the court’s treatment of custom and tradition. The opinion doesn’t treat them as irrelevant to Tribal governance. Rather, it recognizes their continuing cultural and political significance while distinguishing that influence from the exercise of governmental power under the Tribe’s Constitution.
Any exercise of the inherent power of custom and tradition must occur within the bounds of the law governing the Tribe.
In other words, custom and tradition can inform and legitimate Tribal governance, but under the Northern Cheyenne governmental structure addressed in this case, they cannot independently displace the Constitution’s procedures for removing elected officials. Traditional leaders remain free to pursue political change through mechanisms available under Tribal law, including the constitutional referendum process.
Worth a Listen: Native Punk, DIY Culture, and Sovereignty
From Native America Calling. Listen here.
Thomas Michael Swensen (Tangirnaq Native Village) discusses his new book, Where Next, Columbus?: A Native Punk Mixtape.
“Where Next, Columbus? A Native Punk Mixtape” by Thomas Michael Swensen (University of Oklahoma Press 2026)
International Human Rights Update: Today marks first time the UN Recognizes Sept. 5 as the International Day of Indigenous Women and Girls; the US voted No
Today, for the first time, the UN is recognizing September 5 as the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Women and Girls. But the UN isn’t the first body to recognize September 5. Recognition of Indigenous women and girls on this day began through a movement of Indigenous women who transformed a date grounded in anticolonial resistance into a movement for commemoration, and who then sought formal international recognition of the day.
September 5 honors Bartolina Sisa, the Aymara leader executed by hanging by Spanish colonial authorities in the main colonial square of La Paz, Bolivia on this date in 1782. Indigenous organizations meeting in Tiahuanaco, Bolivia, established the commemoration in 1983. The International Indigenous Women’s Forum’s website shares an account of this history.
The General Assembly itself recognized that history. Resolution A/RES/80/10 acknowledges that September 5 was already commemorated in several countries in honor of Indigenous women leaders who devoted their lives to resistance and struggles for Indigenous Peoples’ rights. It formally proclaims the date as an annual international day and calls attention to Indigenous women’s leadership, knowledge, cultural and environmental contributions, and the need to protect their meaningful participation in decision making processes with their free, prior, and informed consent when applicable.
When Bolivia introduced the resolution, its representative Carla Lorena Sandy explained that she stood before the General Assembly as an Indigenous woman. She described international recognition of September 5 as an act of “justice, memory, redress and dignity” and insisted that Indigenous women and girls “do not want to be mere symbols.”
Bolivia sought adoption by consensus, but the United States requested a vote and voted no. The resolution passed 123–3, with Argentina, Israel, and the United States opposed and Ethiopia and Turkey abstaining.
The official UN video of the discussion and vote is available online. The United States (comments begin at 9:38 in the video) said that it remained committed to protecting Indigenous women and girls, but it opposed the international day “on principle” under a general policy against proliferating UN commemorative days. It also objected to DEI terminology; routine reaffirmation of the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals; and language connecting global harms to climate change.
The explanations after the vote exposed additional fault lines.
- Ethiopia abstained, stating that, “The issue of Indigenous people in the context of Africa have been used creating division and challenging nation building.”
- New Zealand voted yes but shared that it was also concerned about the proliferation of international days and their resource implications. It also emphasized UNDRIP’s nonbinding status and maintained that its domestic legal and constitutional processes define the operation of free, prior, and informed consent.
- Iran supported the resolution while disclaiming obligations under CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), which it is not a party to and which was referenced in the resolution to commemorate September 5.
- Cuba criticized the US for its “superfluous and irrelevant reasons” and stated that its support reaffirms its commitment to equality, justice, and respect for the collective rights of Indigenous peoples. It also reaffirmed its commitment to the full implementation of UNDRIP (the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples).
- Israel took the floor after voting no but declined to explain its vote.
Marking the occasion, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights called on states to address not only the disproportionate effects of forced displacement on Indigenous women and girls, but also its structural causes, including armed conflict, territorial invasion, extractive projects undertaken without free, prior, and informed consultation, and environmental contamination. The Commission urged states to ensure their full and culturally appropriate participation in designing protection, return, and resettlement measures; guarantee access to justice, health care, and education; collect data disaggregated by Indigenous identity, sex, gender, and age; recognize Indigenous knowledge and institutions in developing durable solutions; and provide comprehensive reparations incorporating intercultural, intergenerational, and gender perspectives.
Ultimately, September 5 demonstrates how international law can be made from the ground up. Indigenous women preserved the memory, established the commemoration, built the organizations, and carried their demands into international institutions. The United Nations’ action is important because it recognizes that work, not because it started it.
Tribal Courts in Action: From Norway to Eastern Band Cherokee in an International Child Custody Dispute
On July 28, 2026, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Supreme Court affirmed a Tribal Court custody order involving two enrolled Cherokee children and their Norwegian father, following a Norwegian Hague Convention proceeding in which the Gulating Court of Appeal concluded that Norwegian courts lacked jurisdiction and that the underlying parental dispute belonged in an “amerikansk domstol,” an American court.
The Eastern Band Supreme Court opinion also states that the Norwegian appellate court ruling specifically referenced the pending custody action in the Tribal Court before reaching its jurisdictional conclusion. The father sought further review in Norway’s Supreme Court, but the appeal was rejected in HR-2024-340-U.
The opinion in Lambert v. Gjesdal is here.
The Cherokee Justice Center of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Photo from Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Justice Center | Flintco
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.