Author: Kate Fort

Iroquois National Lacrosse Team Plays on South Lawn

Kate Fort

From the White House press release:

The White House hosted its first-ever lacrosse clinic today on the South Lawn featuring some of the nation’s best lacrosse players showcasing the health benefits of the nation’s fastest growing sport to 100 youth as part of the First Lady’s Let’s Move! in Indian Country (LMIC) initiative.

The  clinic, organized by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Department of the Interior, brought players from the Iroquois Nationals Team, Major League Lacrosse, the National Lacrosse League, Metro Lacrosse and representatives from New Balance to introduce local and Native American youth to the sport and its cultural traditions.  The event also kicked off national commitments made between LMIC and major lacrosse leagues and equipment firms to expand Native youths’ access to, and participation in the sport.

“The Iroquois Confederacy is well known for its cultural ties to lacrosse and the ceremonial roots involving healing,” said Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Larry Echo Hawk.  “It is wonderful to have Iroquois representatives demonstrate the continuity and diversity behind the secular sport of lacrosse and its sacred historical relationship to many American Indians.”

Youth from the District of Columbia and Annapolis and Native youth from Baltimore’s Native Lifelines, Menominee Nation and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians learned lacrosse skills as well as the sport’s rich cultural traditions from members of the Onondaga Nation.  Chefs from the National Museum of the American Indian also served healthy, traditional foods.

American Indian Youth Film Workshop at MSU

Kate Fort

From the flyer:

July 17th to July 22nd

Sponsored by the Native American Institute and the College of Arts and Letters.
All students ages 13‐18 may register. Students will attend workshops under the instruction of MSU faculty.
Students will be housed on Michigan State University campus for 4 days.

Lodging and meals will be included for each student.

Students will complete a short film as well as learn:

To use cameras to film scenes and people

To set up & design shots for filming

To create storyboards to develop stories for film

To edit video

To create & edit soundtracks for film

To produce special effects

For information, contact: Gordon Henry at (989) 859‐0178 or henryg@anr.msu.edu

NAI office at (517)353‐6632.

To register for NAI/CAL Film Institute, visit http://www.nai.msu.edu.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Affirms Tribal Sovereign Immunity in Employment Contract Claim

Kate Fort

The case is Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, 2011 OK 61, No. 109805.  From the opinion:

Plaintiffs ask us to conclude that, because the Business Committee granted authority to Chief Spicer to sign employment contracts with tribal employees for three year terms at their current positions and salaries, those contracts must have been approved and ratified in all particulars, including the limited waiver of sovereign immunity. We do not agree with plaintiffs’ position. Federal law requires that the waiver of sovereign immunity be express and unequivocal; it cannot be implied. The Tribe’s Constitution and By-Laws do not authorize the Chief to waive the Tribe’s sovereign immunity.

¶20 Waiver of sovereign immunity was neither expressed nor consented to in the Business Committee’s resolutions that authorized the Chief to sign the employment contracts. Neither of the resolutions expressly ratified the contracts that Chief Spicer entered into: Resolution #27-072607 only authorized the Chief to sign a contract with tribal employees for a three year term, in their present positions of employment and at their present salaries; Resolution #46-081407 ratified only the resolution, not the contracts. We must conclude that under these circumstances, there was no express and unequivocal waiver of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity.5

¶21 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bay Mills Appeal to Stay Preliminary Injunction Denied by Sixth Circuit

Kate Fort

Bay Mills appeal to stay the preliminary injunction issued by the district court in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Bay Mills Indian Community & State of Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community was denied by the Sixth Circuit today. The document is here.

Our previous coverage of this appeal is here, previous coverage of this case is here.

Scholarship from Berger and Owley

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here is Bethany Berger’s article on Williams v. Lee in the Michigan Law Review.  We first posted about it here.

And here is an abstract of an article by Jessica Owley on tribes as conservation easement holders.  The full paper is not yet available for download.

News Coverage of Brown v. Rincon Band

Kate Fort

From McClatchy News Service:

By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday undercut California’s negotiating clout with tribes, as the justices effectively upheld a decision that the state overreached when it compelled general fund payments in exchange for casino approvals.

The court’s decision not to hear California’s appeal is an immediate victory for the San Diego-area Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians. The tribe wants to add hundreds of slot machines to its existing Harrah’s Rincon Casino & Resort, north of Escondido.

Osage Nation v. Irby and Brown v. Rincon Petitions Denied

Kate Fort1 Comment

The Supreme Court denied both the Osage Nation v. Irby and Brown v. Rincon Band petitions today.  The order list is here.

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Elects a New Principal Chief by 11 Votes

Kate Fort1 Comment

From the Washington Post coverage:

OKLAHOMA CITY — In a close election that ran overnight, the Cherokee Nation elected a new principal chief Sunday, with final results posted on the tribe’s website showing longtime councilman Bill John Baker defeating three-term incumbent Chad Smith by 11 votes.

More than 15,000 votes were cast, and the margin between the men had been fewer than 30 since late Saturday.

SCOTUSblog on U.S. v. Jicarilla Apache

Kate Fort1 Comment

SCOTUSblog posted its summary of U.S. v. Jicarilla Apache today.

Article on Supreme Court Justices Use of Dictionaries on the Rise

Kate Fort

From the NY Times:
Justices Turning More Frequently to Dictionary, and Not Just for Big Words
By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — In a decision last week in a patent case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. puzzled out the meaning of a federal law by consulting the usual legal materials — and five dictionaries.

One of the words he looked up was “of.” He learned that it means pretty much what you think it means.

In May alone, the justices cited dictionaries in eight cases to determine what legislators had meant when they used words like “prevent,” “delay” and “report.” Over the years, justices have looked up both perfectly ordinary words (“now,” “also,” “any,” “if”) and ones you might think they would know better than the next guy (“attorney,” “common law”).

All of this is, lexicographers say, sort of strange.

“I think that it’s probably wrong, in almost all situations, to use a dictionary in the courtroom,” said Jesse Sheidlower, the editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary. “Dictionary definitions are written with a lot of things in mind, but rigorously circumscribing the exact meanings and connotations of terms is not usually one of them.”

And in a very quick, just for fun (?) search:

Carcieri v. Salazar: “At that time, the primary definition of “now” was “[a]t the present time; at this moment; at the time of speaking.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 1671 (2d ed.1934); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1262 (3d ed.1933) (defining “now” to mean “[a]t this time, or at the present moment” and noting that “ ‘[n]ow’ as used in a statute ordinarily refers to the date of its taking effect …” (emphasis added)).”

Nevada v. Hicks: “(“Process” is defined as “any means used by a court to acquire or exercise its jurisdiction over a person or over specific property,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1084 (5th ed.1979), and is equated in criminal cases with a warrant, id., at 1085.)”

U.S. v. Lara (J. Thomas, concurring): “The sovereign is, by definition, the entity “in which independent **1644 and supreme authority is vested.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1395 (6th ed.1990). It is quite arguably the essence of sovereignty not to exist merely at the whim of an external government.”

Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band (C.J. Rehnquist, dissenting):”Usufructuary rights are “a real right of limited duration on the property of another.” See Black’s Law Dictionary 1544 (6th ed.1990).”

Feel free to add additional favorites in the comments.