Here.
Coverage here.
OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear an appeal involving Metis hunting and fishing rights in Alberta.
The Metis Nation of Alberta had filed arguments on behalf of hunter Garry Hirsekorn that challenged a lower court ruling that restricted hunting rights to around northern Metis settlements.
Here.
About 50 years ago, Clearwater retraced his great-great-great-grandfather’s footsteps along what Navajo and Mescalero Apache people call The Long Walk. In a series of marches starting in 1864, 9,500 Navajo and 500 Mescalero Apache were forced by the U.S. Army to walk 400 miles from their reservation in northeastern Arizona to the edge of the Pecos River in eastern New Mexico; like the forced march known as the Trail of Tears, thousands died.
H/T DAH
Here. Decision is from December, 2013.
Applying that test here, we hold that the circuit
court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint.
We also hold that the circuit court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s December 6, 2011 judgment.
Here.
Here, respondent-father indicated to the referee that his great-grandmother was a member of the “Blackfoot” tribe. Although petitioner argues that there is no such tribe as “Blackfoot,” the BIA’s list of federally recognized Indian tribes includes “the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana.” See http://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of- federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx (last visited December 30, 2013). Respondent-father points out that the name “Blackfoot” was used by the federal government in the Treaty with the Blackfeet of 1855, which recognized the existence of a Blackfoot Tribe and Blackfoot Nation. See Treaty with the Blackfeet, 11 Stat 657 (October 17, 1855). Thus, mindful of our Supreme Court’s statement that “[i]f there must be error in determining whether tribal notice is required, let it be on the side of caution[,]” Morris, 491 Mich at 108, we hold that respondent-father provided sufficient indicia of Indian heritage to the trial court to require tribal notice. If the identity of the tribe is uncertain, 25 USC § 1912(a) allows notice to be given to the Secretary of the Interior. Here, the record does not indicate that any notice was given.
***
We therefore conditionally reverse the trial court’s termination of respondent-father’s parental rights, and remand to the trial court for resolution of the notice issue. On remand, the trial court shall ensure that notice is properly made to the appropriate entities. If the children are not Indian children or the properly noticed tribes or government entities do not respond within the allotted time, the trial court’s termination of respondent-father’s parental rights is reinstated. If, however, the trial court concludes that the ICWA does apply to the proceedings, the trial court’s termination of respondent-father’s parental rights to his four children must be vacated and proceedings begun anew in compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the ICWA.
And another here.
WASHINGTON, DC – Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn today approved a request by the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria to acquire 626 acres in trust in Butte County, California, near the City of Chico for gaming purposes. The Mechoopda Tribe will construct and operate a modest gaming facility on 91 acres of the site. The project is estimated to create 214 full-time jobs.
“The Mechoopda Tribe has pursued this initiative for more than a decade,” Washburn said. “The acquisition of the land into trust for the purpose of establishing a class III gaming establishment will result in substantial financial benefits to the Tribe and help stimulate economic development.”
Decision will be published here.
Friday afternoon release here.
WASHINGTON, DC – Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn today issued a final determination not to acknowledge the petitioner known as the Tolowa Nation (Petitioner #85) located in Fort Dick, California, as an Indian tribe under the regulations governing the Federal acknowledgment process (at 25 Code of Federal Regulations Part 83).
The evidence provided is insufficient to demonstrate that the Tolowa Nation meets criterion 83.7(b), one of the seven mandatory criteria of the regulations. Under the regulations, the failure to meet all seven criteria requires a determination that the petitioning group is not an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. Therefore, Department of the Interior (Department) declines to acknowledge Petitioner #85 as an Indian tribe.
More than the usual troubling CA notice cases, that is. Particularly the part about not having to do *any* notice, regardless of the court’s confusion about the history and location of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe.
Here.
The social worker reported Audrey said her father, Luis H., has some Yaqui Indian heritage, but she had not spoken with him and did not have sufficient information to fill out the form. When the social worker telephoned Luis, he said his mother was born in Sonora, Mexico,and mother’s father was Yaqui. He said he did not know if any family member was registered with a tribe, but reported no family member practiced any tribal customs.
***
At the contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on July 30, Audrey again indicated her only potential Indian heritage was from the Yaqui Tribe in Mexico. County Counsel said as a precautionary measure the Agency would provide ICWA notice to the Yaqui Tribe in the United States and, on August 1, it sent notice to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe in Arizona. The court, however, found ICWA notice was not required because there was no reason to believe Mason is an Indian child in that Audrey had indicated her only potential Indian heritage is through the Mexican Yaqui Tribe, and the Mexican Yaqui Tribe is not a federally recognized tribe governed by ICWA.
Here.
[¶15] B.B. argues that because custody has already been determined in the tribal court, the tribe has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over paternity and support.
[¶16] We specifically held in Kelly, 2009 ND 20, ¶ 22, 759 N.W.2d 721, that custody can be bifurcated from other proceedings in marriage. “Thus, even if the district court determines that the reservation is the child’s home state and that the tribal court therefore has jurisdiction over child custody, the district court retains concurrent jurisdiction over the remaining incidents of the marriage and may choose to exercise that jurisdiction . . . .” Id. Although B.B. and A.T.H. never married, the bifurcation principle of Kelly nevertheless applies in this case because multiple parties and jurisdictions are involved and each has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings. We conclude that under Kelly, the paternity and support claims brought against B.B. in state court can be bifurcated from the custody action brought in Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court.
[¶17] Recognizing that paternity and support claims are divisible from custody determinations, and in view of the factual similarities between this case and Doe, we conclude the state court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case.
In today’s Friday afternoon release from Interior:
WASHINGTON, DC – Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn today issued proposed findings for two petitioners under the Federal Acknowledgment Process. The decisions include a proposed finding to acknowledge the petitioner known as the Pamunkey Indian Tribe (Petitioner #323) as a federally recognized Indian Tribe, and a proposed finding to decline acknowledgment for the petitioner known as the Meherrin Indian Tribe of North Carolina (Petitioner #119b).
Release here.
The proposed findings and Fed Register notices are not yet up here, though the release indicates they will be soon.
Meherrin Indian Tribe Interior page is here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.