Featuring a former student of mine and current tribal cultural resources policy fellow at Berkeley Law, Nazune Menka, here.
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.
Other Cooley materials are here.
The Harvard Law Review has posted a Note, “Tribal Power, Worker Power: Organizing Unions in the Context of Native Sovereignty.” PDF
Here are the materials in New York Times v. Dept. of Health and Human Services (S.D. N.Y.):
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.
Here are the materials in Jones v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe (E.D. Tex.):
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 330, and 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.