Berkeley News: “Why were Trump loyalists allowed to storm the Capitol?”

Featuring a former student of mine and current tribal cultural resources policy fellow at Berkeley Law, Nazune Menka, here.

An excerpt:

In 2016 and 2017, we saw what the police response was to the Dakota Access Pipeline and water protectors. The use of water cannons and rubber bullets on peaceful people at the Water Protector Camp was reminiscent of the police treatment of activists during the civil rights movement in the South.

This summer, we saw what the police response was to the Black Lives Matter movement. The protests that were happening were largely calm. They were respectful, peaceful protests. People came in from out of town to counterprotest, and that’s where the clashing and violence came from. I don’t think that any of the violence this summer was at the behest of the Black Lives Matter movement. I think quite the opposite — these events were targeted to skew the optics in the media to basically demonize people of color even further. Thinking about this in contrast to the police response at the Capitol is heartbreaking to me.

Amicus Briefs Supporting Petitioner in United States v. Cooley

Here:

19-1414 Amici SiouxTribes

19-1414 Amicus Brief of NationalIndigenousWomensResourceCenter

19-1414 Indian Law Scholars Cooley Brief

19-1414 tsac Former U.S. Attorneys

19-1414 tsac Members of Congress

19-1414 tsac The Cayuga Nation

19-1414 Ute Amici Brief

Final NCAI-Tribal Governments Amici Brief-US v Cooley 1-15-21

Other Cooley materials are here.

Pit River Tribe Suit against BLM Leases Survives (Mostly) Motions to Dismiss

Here are the materials in Pit River Tribe v. BLM (E.D. Cal.):

63 First Amended Complaint

64 BLM Motion to Dismiss

67 Calpine Motion to Dismiss

75 Opposition

76 BLM Reply

77 Calpine Reply

79 DCT Order

Federal Court Orders IHS to Turn Over Docs on Stanley Patrick Weber to New York Times and Wall Street Journal

Here are the materials in New York Times v. Dept. of Health and Human Services (S.D. N.Y.):

1 Complaint

20 US Motion for Summary Judgment

23 Newspapers Motion for Summary Judgment

26 US Reply

28 Newspapers Reply

31 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This Freedom of Information Act suit was brought by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and a reporter seeking to force the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) to release a report that it commissioned from a private consultant to investigate numerous acts of rape and sexual abuse committed by Stanley Patrick Weber, a former IHS pediatrician, against Native American children. IHS has taken the position that the report is protected from disclosure by a statute that affords confidentiality to reports on the “quality of medical care” — a position we reject. We also find that the report is not protected under the litigation privilege exemption of the Freedom of Information Act and thus order that it be produced.

Federal Court Dismisses Tort Claim Against Alabama-Coushatta Tribe

Here are the materials in Jones v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe (E.D. Tex.):

1 Complaint

9 Motion to Dismiss

12 Amended Complaint

18 Motion to Dismiss

20 Response

21 Reply

22 Surreply

25 Magistrate Report

26 Tribe Objections

27 Jones Objections

29 Tribe Response

30 Supplemental Motion to Dismiss

31 Response

32 Reply

33 Magistrate Report

34 Jones Objection

35 Response

36 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Jones’s objections to the Reports do not raise any new arguments to support his claim that his premises liability claim is not barred by sovereign immunity. He instead continues to argue that this court should follow Wilkes v. PCI Gaming Authority, 287 So.3d 330and hold that the Tribe’s sovereign immunity is waived in the interests of justice. But as discussed in the first Report, the only court to cite Wilkes has declined to follow it. See Oertwich v. Traditional Vill. of Togiak, 413 F. Supp. 3d 963, 968 (D. Alaska 2019). The court agrees with the magistrate judge that “Wilkes, an Alabama Supreme Court decision that has never been cited by any circuit court, is not enough for this court to override both Fifth Circuit case law dismissing damages claims based on tribal sovereign immunity or the case law from other circuits upholding sovereign immunity for claims sounding in tort.” (Doc. #25, at 6). Thus, this claim must be dismissed.