Month: September 2020

Bridging Michigan: Eric Hemenway & Matthew L.M. Fletcher in Conversation (Today, 7PM)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Register here:

bridging-michigan-cover-slide-Sept-1

As part of Michigan Humanities’ commitment to dialogue around critical issues and their connection to the humanities, we are coordinating Bridging Michigan, an online conversation series this summer and fall with a focus on the history of systemic inequities, their current impacts on health, education, and Indigenous rights, and the ways that the arts and humanities are active parts of creating real change.

On Thursday, September 3, from 7 to 8 p.m. (EDT) join Michigan Humanities for an online conversation featuring Eric Hemenway and Matthew L.M. Fletcher discussing the history and current state of Native mascots.

Ninth Circuit Decides Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians v. California

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion:

CA9 Opinion

Briefs here.

King County Deputies’ Negligence in Muckleshoot Member’s Death Beyond Wash. State Court Review

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Davis v. King County (Wash. Ct. App.):

8-31-20 Opinion

7-25-19 Appellant’s Brief

9-27-19 Amended Appellees’ Joint Response Brief

09-09-19 Appellees’ Joint Response Brief

10-9-19 Appellant’s Reply

An excerpt:

“Before addressing each of the estate’s arguments, we acknowledge that Davis’s death is tragic and echo the trial court’s sentiment that the application of RCW 4.24.420 here is problematic because it precludes claims where law enforcement officers’ actions and training may have been unreasonable, given their knowledge that the individual they were confronting was suicidal and armed. RCW 4.24.420 prevents courts and juries from reaching the issue of whether law enforcement’s negligence resulted in the loss of life. The statute is clear and precludes our evaluation of these policy questions.”

Amended Complaint in Census Case involving Navajo and Gila River

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, in National Urban League v. Ross (N.D. Cal.):

2020 09 01 (61) Amended Complaint

Arizona Approves Pro Hac Vice Rule for ICWA Attorneys

Kate Fort

The rule removes fees and association requirements. It is Rule 39(a). This one took two tries to get adopted. The Arizona crew worked really hard to get this one done–congratulations!!

AZ_Rule39a_Order-R200003

San Carlos Apache Contract Support Costs Suit Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Azar (D. Ariz.):

1 Complaint

13 Motion to Dismiss

21 Response

22 Reply

23 DCT Order

Webinars on Indigenous Peoples & Intellectual Property for Indigenous Leaders, Lawyers, and Community Members

Matthew Campbell

20200910indigenous-ip-flyer_Page_1

You can see the PDF here.

NIGC Settlement Materials re: St. Croix Chippewa

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Notice of Settlement

Settlement Agreement

Notice of Violation

Notice of Proposed Civil Fine

California SCT Decides United Auburn Community of the Auburn Rancheria v. Newsom

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion:

S238544

An excerpt:

This is a case about how California law applies to the delicate juncture of executive power, federalism, and tribal sovereignty. Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA; 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.), the United States Secretary of the Interior (Interior Secretary) may permit casino-style gaming on certain land taken into federal trust for an Indian tribe, so long as the Governor of the state where the land is located concurs. But nowhere in the California Constitution is the Governor granted explicit authority to concur in this cooperative-federalism scheme. We must decide whether the
Governor nonetheless has the authority to concur in the Interior Secretary’s determination to allow gaming on tribal trust land in California.

What we hold is that California law empowers the Governor to concur.

Briefs here.