Presidential Memorandum on the Dakota Access Pipeline

We spend a lot of time waiting for official documents to post to make sure the information out there about them is correct. Sarah and I were waiting all afternoon for an “official” link to this memorandum, and then I realized the link would be to the website of the White House Press Office. So. For the record, I personally saw the actual document first on Twitter from Lael Echo-Hawk (@laeleh), and then on Facebook from Bryan Newland, who had it from Nicole Willis. It does appear from the text that it will eventually be published in the Federal Record, probably tomorrow or the next day.

Here is the Memorandum (technically not an Executive Order. For the quick and easy explanation of the difference you can look here, but probably should know that President Obama’s actions in Bristol Bay, for example, were also a memorandums).

This Memorandum does not itself try to eliminate the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for DAPL, but asks the U.S. Corps of Engineers to expedite it and to consider rescinding or modifying the December 4th Memorandum posted here.

Standing Rock’s press release in response is here.

Order from North Dakota Supreme Court Regarding Out of State Lawyers

Here. This order is issued after receiving more than 16,000 comments on the proposed temporary rule, which was in response to the large number of arrests during the DAPL protests late last year (and which are ongoing–law enforcement clashed with water protectors over the MLK weekend). The full order is worth reading, but here are the requirements:

In criminal cases pending in the South Central Judicial District arising from arrests made during the protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline between August 1, 2016 and until further order of this Court, a lawyer authorized to practice law in another state, and not disbarred, suspended or otherwise restricted from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in North Dakota on a temporary basis. The legal services must be provided on a pro bono basis, without payment or the expectation of payment of a fee. This Order does not prohibit a lawyer providing legal services under authority of this Order from being reimbursed from nongovernmental funds for actual expenses incurred while rendering services under this Order. The following requirements, processes and procedures shall apply:

1) The lawyer seeking pro hac vice admission must complete a form available through the Clerk of the Supreme Court and file it with the North Dakota State Board of Law Examiners;

2) The lawyer seeking pro hac vice admission must file the above referenced form with a certificate from his or her resident state licensing authority certifying the lawyer is admitted, currently licensed, eligible to practice and in good standing;

3) The lawyer seeking pro hac vice admission must associate with a licensed North Dakota lawyer as required under N.D. Admission Prac. R. 3. We excuse the requirement that the North Dakota associate lawyer appear in-person and remain in court for all proceedings unless the district judge presiding in the case enters an order, based on a case-specific reason, requiring the presence of the North Dakota associate lawyer;

4) The pro hac vice filing fee is waived;

5) Upon receipt of the completed form and required materials, the North Dakota State Board of Law Examiners will provide the lawyer seeking pro hac vice admission an identification number that must be included on all pleadings filed with any court regarding these matters;

6) Each business day the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall provide the Court Administrator for the South Central Judicial District with a listing of all lawyers who have been granted pro hac vice admission as provided in this Order;

7) Lawyers admitted pro hac vice must access the North Dakota Odyssey electronic case management system through the associate lawyer unless the associate lawyer does not subscribe to North Dakota’s Odyssey case management system. If the associate lawyer does not subscribe to Odyssey case management system, the lawyer admitted pro hac vice may email filings to the clerk of court;

8) The lawyer admitted pro hac vice under this Order is not by virtue of that admission limited in the number of appearances or representations he or she can make regarding these matters;

9) The lawyer admitted pro hac vice under this Order must remain licensed and in good standing in the lawyer’s state of licensure, and must verify in writing to the North Dakota State Board of Law Examiners no later than January 5, 2018, their licensure  status and provide a listing of pending cases for which they are acting under this Order; and

10) Any allegations of misconduct by a lawyer admitted pro hac vice under this Order that is reported to the Disciplinary Board of North Dakota will be provided to the lawyer’s state of licensure, and may be grounds for revocation of pro hac vice admission under this Order.

Oregon Proposed Pro Hac Vice Waiver for Tribal ICWA Attorneys

Here is the proposed rule:

{(9) An applicant is not required to associate with local counsel pursuant to subsection (1)(c) of this section or pay the fee established by subsection (6) of this section if the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the Bar that:

(a) The applicant seeks to appear in an Oregon court for the limited purpose of participating in a child custody proceeding as defined by 25 U.S.C. §1903, pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. §1901 et seq.;

(b) The applicant represents an Indian tribe, parent, or Indian custodian, as defined by 25 U.S.C. §1903; and

(c) The Indian child’s tribe has executed an affidavit asserting the tribe’s intent to intervene and participate in the state court proceeding and affirming the child’s membership or eligibility of membership under tribal law.}

The proposed change is to rule 3.170, and comments in support of the rule change must be made by February 24th. Now both Michigan and Oregon have these proposed rule changes in the works. These are really important state rule changes for tribes and Native families–the cost of pro hac in Oregon alone is $500, and in other states tribal attorneys are still being denied the right of intervention without following long and onerous pro hac requirements–sometimes making it impossible to participate in child welfare hearings involving Native kids. 

Supreme Court Denies Cert in R.P. v. LA County (Alexandria P. Case)

Order List here.

16-500 R. P., ET UX. V. LA CTY. DEPT. CHILDREN, ET AL. The motion of respondent The Minor, Alexandria P. for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The motion of respondent Father J.E. for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

This means the Supreme Court will not be hearing the case.

There are still a few issues in the California courts being litigated, so we will keep an eye on it, but this should (hopefully) be the end of this case.

 

 

2016 ICWA Appellate Cases by the Numbers

Here’s our annual contribution to the ICWA data discussion. While a few cases might yet come in, we have our final list of 2016 appealed ICWA cases sorted. A note on the data–these are cases that are on Westlaw and/or Lexis Nexis, and ICWA (or state equivalent) was litigated. We collect the case name, the date, the court, the state, whether the case is reported (also called published) or not, the top two issues, up to three named tribes, the outcome of the case, and who appealed the case. These are standard state court ICWA cases, and do not include any of the ongoing federal litigation. We did this last year as well. Sadly no, I haven’t yet published this anywhere but Turtle Talk, and yes, it is next on the to-do list. If you know we are missing a case based on the numbers, and it’s publicly available, *please* send it to me [fort at law.msu.edu] so we can add it. I’m also happy to answer questions at the same email.

There were 175 appealed ICWA cases this year, down 74 from last year. There were 30 reported ICWA cases this year. As always, California leads the states with 114 cases, 10 reported. Michigan is second with 13, 2 reported. Texas, which didn’t have any cases we could find last year, had 7 cases this year, 1 reported. Then Iowa with 6, 1 reported, Oklahoma with 4 reported, Nebraska with 3, 2 reported, and Alaska and Arizona with 3, 1 reported each. States with 2 appealed ICWA cases include Arkansas (none reported), Indiana (none reported), Ohio (none reported), Oregon (2 reported), Washington (1 reported), Illinois (1 reported). Finally the following states had 1 ICWA case: Idaho, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, Kansas, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky, and Massachusetts.

In California, the cases further breakdown to 37 in the 4th Appellate District, 33 in the 2nd, 24 in the 1st, 9 in the 5th, 6 in the 3rd, and 3 in the 6th. California is the only state where we track by appellate districts at this time.

Supreme Courts in Oklahoma (2), Alaska (2), Idaho, Nebraska (2), South Dakota, California (2), Vermont and Washington all decided ICWA cases this year.

Of the 175 total appeals, 90 were affirmed, 67 were remanded, 14 were reversed, and the four remaining were affirmed in part and reversed in part (1), denied as moot (1), dismissed (1), vacated and remanded (1).

Top litigated issues were as follows: Notice (106), Inquiry (21), Placement Preferences (10), Active Efforts (8), Determination of Indian Child (8), Burden of Proof (5), Transfer to Tribal Court (5), Intervention, Termination of Parental Rights, Existing Indian Family, (2 cases for each one). The other cases with 1 each: Qualified Expert Witness, Indian Custodian, Tribal Customary Adoption, Application to Divorce, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Foster Care Placement

52 different tribes are represented in the first named tribe in a case. There were 56 cases involving claims of Cherokee citizenship. Of those appeals, 48 involved issues of notice and inquiry. In 21 cases the tribe was unknown (parent did not know name of tribe). In 14, the tribe was unnamed (court did not record name of tribe in the opinion).

4 cases were appealed by tribes (Cherokee Nation, Gila River, Shoshone Bannock). 92 were appealed by mom, 49 by dad, and 24 by both. Other parties who appealed include agency (1), child’s attorney (1), foster parents (1), great aunt and uncle (1), Indian custodian (1), and state and foster mother (1).

Child Welfare Staff Attorney Position at Nebraska Appleseed

Job Announcement

Staff Attorney – Child Welfare Program

Organization Profile

Nebraska Appleseed is a nonprofit organization that fights for justice and opportunity for all. Appleseed takes a systemic approach to complex issues – such as children’s welfare, immigration policy, affordable health care, and poverty – and takes its work wherever it can do the most good, whether that’s at the courthouse, at the statehouse, or in the community. For more information visit neappleseed.org.

Nebraska Appleseed is an equal opportunity employer; people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with disabilities, individuals with personal experience in the child welfare system, and those from diverse backgrounds are strongly encouraged to apply. Nebraska Appleseed does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, ethnic background, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability.

Position Summary

The Staff Attorney will be responsible for working with the Child Welfare Program Director to identify and develop legal and policy solutions to issues impacting Nebraska’s child welfare system. The focus of the work will be on reforming the state’s child welfare system to make sure it supports children and families who need its intervention, and that intervention does not contribute to problems. The Staff Attorney will engage in policy research and analysis, legal research and litigation, and resource development. This position will report to the Child Welfare Program Director, and will work closely with staff attorneys in other programs and the Child Welfare Program Associate. This is a full-time position based in our office in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Responsibilities:

The Staff Attorney will work with the Child Welfare Program Director to carry out the objectives of the program. Specific responsibilities include:

  • Identifying laws and policies that negatively affect the welfare of Nebraska children and working with Child Welfare Program Director, Legal Director, and other staff attorneys to develop and conduct impact or class action litigation to remedy problems.
  • Conducting policy research and analysis focused on the legal aspects of key issues affecting Nebraska’s child welfare system, as well as drafting and providing testimony to the Legislature and administrative agencies.
  • Developing legal resources and providing technical assistance, including amicus curiae briefs, for a network of “on the ground” juvenile court attorneys.
  • Developing educational materials (e.g., reports, fact sheets, presentations, policy briefs) for key stakeholders.
  • Learning from community members and community partners about issues and potential systemic solutions.
  • Supervising law clerks and interns, and advising intake coordinator on child welfare intakes.
  • Participating, as needed, in administrative tasks and program teams.

Qualifications:

  • Licensed to practice law in Nebraska or be willing to take necessary steps to be licensed.
  • Excellent legal research, analytic, and writing skills.
  • Creative thinking. The ability to develop novel legal theories and strategies to address complex problems.
  • Ability to work independently, be organized and detail oriented.
  • Ability to work in a team-oriented and collaborative environment.
  • Strong interpersonal skills and ability to effectively build and maintain community relationships.
  • Experience in or demonstrated commitment to public interest law and advocacy on behalf of children.
  • Knowledge and awareness of local, regional, and national issues facing child welfare.
  • Three years experience practicing law strongly preferred but exceptional recent graduates will be considered.
  • Legal experience in litigation and the areas of child welfare and juvenile law, administrative law, civil rights, and/or appellate practice preferred.
  • Experience with legislative and administrative advocacy preferred.

Salary and Benefits

Competitive nonprofit salary based on experience and benefits including health, vision, dental, 401(k), and vacation.

To Apply

Position is open until filled. Target start date is March 2017. Please send a cover letter, resume, writing sample, and list of three references to Elizabeth Hutchison at ehutchison@neappleseed.org or mail to: Nebraska Appleseed Child Welfare Staff Attorney search, Nebraska Appleseed, 941 “O” Street, Suite 920, Lincoln, NE 68508 by Friday, Jan. 20. If you have any questions or need additional time to submit materials, please contact Elizabeth Hutchison at 402-438-8853, ext. 122.

Marcia Zug on Sharpe v. Sharpe and Child Support Modifications

Here.

It is easy to presume that maximizing child support is in a child’s best interest, but as the above cases demonstrate, there are exceptions. When the benefits of modification outweigh the negatives, modification should be permitted. This is true for all child support cases, but especially those pertaining to American Indian families. When considering modification requests made by Indian obligors, family courts must be particularly sensitive to the effects of income imputation on individual Native families as well as the effects of imputation on their tribes more broadly. If the benefit of modification relates to the child’s or the parent’s unique status as a member of a federally recognized tribe, this fact should be given substantial, perhaps even decisive, weight in the court’s modification decision. As discussed in Part I, courts applying the strict rule test have permitted modification when it benefits the child or the greater community. Supporting native subsistence lifestyles does both.

Sharpe v. Sharpe is here.

Alaska Public Media Story on the Kenaitze Joint Jurisdiction Court

Here.

Kenaitze Indian Tribe in Kenai is partnering with the State of Alaska to develop the state’s first joint-jurisdiction therapeutic court. Proponents say it’s a step towards better support for community members — both Native and non-Native — who are struggling with substance abuse and the legal system.

Judge Sweet identifies a particular issue of interest:

Kimberley Sweet, Chief Judge for the Kenaitze tribal court, said the situation is having a serious impact on families.

“99 percent of our children and native aid cases come in and there is a drug and alcohol component to either the neglect or the abuse that has taken place and the state court is seeing the same things,” Sweet said. “We were having people in our CINA cases here that had a simultaneous criminal case going on over in the state court.”

Michigan Approves Two Permits for the Aquila Back Forty Mine

There are still two major permits the mine must obtain, including one that may end up requiring federal approval.

Press release here.

Press coverage here.

The press link came via Dylan Miner, who has also put together art work to protest the mine here.

President Designates Bears Ears A National Monument

President Obama’s statement

President Begaye’s statement

Department of Interior’s Press Release

NARF Press Release

Intertribal Coalition twitter feed

High Country News coverage