Patton Boggs Agrees to Pay Chevron in Ecuadorian Pollution Case

Here.

Previous coverage here and here.

House Subcommittee Hearing on the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act

Here is the link to the page. The archived video of the hearing should be up on that page sometime today.

Witnesses and Testimony:

PANEL I

The Honorable Mike Simpson (H.R. 409)
Member of Congress

PANEL II

Mr. Michael Black (H.R. 409 and H.R. 4350)
Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Department of the Interior

Mr. Llevando “Cowboy” Fisher (H.R. 4350)
President
Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Mr. Ernie Stensgar (H.R. 409)
Vice Chairman, Coeur d’Alene Tribe
Member, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
(Truth in Testimony Form)

Mr. David Mullon (H.R. 409)
Chief Counsel
National Congress of American Indians
(Truth in Testimony Form)

News Article from High Country News on Navajo Nation v. San Juan County

Here.

Previous coverage here.

Senate Indian Affairs Hearing Today on Land into Trust at 2:30pm

Here.
Witnesses:
Panel 1
The Honorable Jerry Moran
Senator-United States Senate

Panel 2
The Honorable Kevin Washburn
Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs-Department of the Interior

Panel 3
The Honorable Brian Cladoosby
President-National Congress of American Indians

The Honorable Nathan Small
Chairman-Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

The Honorable Elwood Lowery
Chairman-Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe

The Honorable David “D.K.” Sprague
Chairman-Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan

News Article on Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik

Here.

While written court orders are obviously important, court transcripts reflect far more what it is like to be a parent in a fast and confusing hearing about your children. Also makes for a strong argument for these to be public hearings rather than confidential ones. It’s far from a complete solution, but sunshine usually helps more than it hurts.

Skokomish Tribal Court RFQ for Various Tribal Services

SKOKOMISH RFQ– Judicial and Prosecutorial Services 2014.5.6

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND: The purpose of this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is to contract with applicants (individuals or law firms) to provide the following services to the Skokomish Tribal Court: (1) Pro Tempore Judicial and Appellate; (2) Conflict/Substitute Prosecution and Indian Child Welfare Presenting.

Federal Court Finds No Jurisdiction for Itself in Tribal Guardianship Proceeding

Here.

Section 1914 does not confer jurisdiction upon this court because the guardianship action at issue here was not decided under State law. Rather, Plaintiff is challenging an Indian tribal court’s decision to place an Indian child in foster care. Plaintiff does not allege that the tribal court lacked jurisdiction to make a custody determination or otherwise violated his due process or equal protection rights; rather, he merely alleges that its decision violated the Indian Child Welfare Act. However, the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963, gives Indian tribes jurisdiction to determine custody of Indian children. See DeMent v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Court, 874 F.2d 510, 514 (8th Cir. 1989). The Indian Child Welfare Act does not confer jurisdiction upon this court to review the propriety of the tribal court’s guardianship decision in this case.

A Collection of Stories and Links about Billy Frank

Billy Frank’s Last Post at NWIFC: Keep Big Oil Out of Grays Harbor

PBS Newshour: Northwest “Salmon People” Face Future without Fish

Oral History Project, Where the Salmon Run

Bunky Echohawk’s Portrait of Billy Frank

NY Times: On the River Bank with Billy Frank Jr. Indians and Salmon: Making Nature Whole

Seattle Times: Billy Frank: Champion of Tribal Rights Dies at 83

Seattle Times: Timeline of Billy Frank’s Life

Bellingham Herald: Billy Frank Jr. — Activist, Icon, Environmental Giant

Time Magazine: Native American Fishing Activist Billy Frank

North Kipsap Herald: Billy Frank Jr. Devoted His Life to Defense of Fishing Rights, Salmon Habitat

The Olympian: Tribal Fishing Activist Led Fight Resulting in 1974 Boldt Decision

Statement of Cynthia Iyall, Nisqually Indian Tribe Chair

Statement of the President

Statement of the Secretary of the Interior

Statement of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior

Senator Cantwell’s Statement

Special thanks to Julia Good Fox, who tweeted the first four links at @goodfox

Michigan Tech Dissertation on Tribal-State Fishery Co-Management

Here.

Preface
Goals and objectives
The research goals were to assess and describe characteristics of a multi-cultural fishery co-management arrangement of state and tribal organizations in Michigan in order to provide information and recommendations to enhance the institutional
relationship. Information was collected through interview data and quantitative analysis of agency work plans of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the State of Michigan.
Objectives Included:
1. Determine extent of agency understanding for each other’s management priorities and knowledge systems used for guiding fishery management decisions and how they may influence views on the value of science in fishery management, and
suggest strategies for navigating multi-cultural institution building (Chapter 2).
2. Present how different participant values and perspectives shape priorities of biological assessments and restoration activities, identify and assess common and exclusive priorities and develop recommendations for collaboration (Chapter 3).
3. Describes how agency participants value collaboration, what barriers exist for successful collaboration and how an ideal relationship could be formed and function (Chapter 4).

Seminole Tribe Complaint Dismissed by 11th Circuit in Revenue Case

Decision here.

Briefs here.

Lower court briefs and decision here.

For various reasons, this might be a good case for en banc review by the 11th Circuit. First, one of the three judges deciding this was from the D.C. district court, sitting by designation. Second, the decision is based on an issue not briefed (which leads to a broader research question we have about federal Indian law generally–how often this happens). Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Court’s analysis of Ex Parte Young an issue of broader, national, concern.

The Court’s issues with equitable relief, and characterizing the relief should the Tribe win as a continued “damages” against the state because of the state’s collection regime is strange.

A declaratory judgment exempting the Tribe from the tax is the functional equivalent of ordering recurring payments of money damages. The Tribe points to no other way around the alleged constitutional violation other than a recurring refund paid to the Tribe from the Department after it precollects the tax from the fuel suppliers.

***

Unlike the tax regimes in those appeals, the only relief available to the Tribe under Florida law is a refund of taxes it will already have paid, and state sovereign immunity bars that relief. See Ford Motor Co., 323 U.S. at 463–64, 65 S. Ct. at 350.

As Judge Jordan in the dissent writes:

The majority’s opinion, as I read it, apparently would allow a state to shield the enforcement of any tax, no matter how constitutionally untenable, from challenge in federal court simply by enacting a precollection procedure.