Three New (and Fascinating — Read: Lots of Anishinaabe Jurisprudence) Appellate Court Opinions from Sault Tribe COA

Payment v. Election Committee

Hoffman v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Board of Directors

MacLeod v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians

Pawnee Nation Endorses Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Persons

Here is the press release and related statutes:

Interior Proposes New Fee-to-Trust Regs and New Class III Compact Process Regs, Parts 151 and 293

Here.

From the notice:

The Department of the Interior (Department) invites Tribal Leaders to consult on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Department’s Land Acquisition regulations, 25 CFR Part 151, and the NPRM for the Department’s Class III Tribal State Gaming Compact Process, 25 CFR Part 293.

25 CFR Part 151, Land Acquisition

Since the Department first promulgated these regulations in 1980, it has developed extensive experience in the fee-to-trust acquisition process.  Relying on that experience and input from Tribes, this proposed rule seeks to make the fee-to-trust process more efficient, simpler, and less expensive to support restoration of Tribal homelands.

25 CFR Part 293, Class III Tribal State Gaming Compact Process

The Department is developing proposed updates to Part 293 to provide clear guidance regarding the Secretary’s review and evaluation process for Tribal-State class III gaming compacts.  The current regulations do not identify the factors the Department considers; rather, those factors are contained in a series of decision letters issued by the Department since the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988.  Recent and ongoing litigation highlights the need for the Department to clarify how it will review or analyze gaming compacts to determine whether they comply with federal law. 

Tribal Consultation

The Department will conduct two virtual consultation sessions and one in-person consultation to obtain further Tribal input on the Part 151 NPRM and the Part 293 NPRM.  The consultation sessions will be open to Tribal leadership and representatives of federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations.  Please join us at one or more of the following consultations sessions.

If you would like to provide written comments, please email them to consultation@bia.gov by 11:59 p.m. EST on Wednesday, March 1, 2023.

Washington Federal Court Rejects Teck Caminco Defenses in CERCLA Suit [Colville]

Here are newish materials in Pakootas v. Teck Caminco Metals (E.D. Wash.):

North Dakota Law Review Indian Law Issue

Here:

TRANSCRIPTS

97 N.D. L. Rev. 297
It Is More Than Just A Calculation: Reframing Child Support In Indian Country
– Sharon Thompson

97 N.D. L. Rev. 307
Tribal Jurisdiction Under The Second Montana Exception: Implications Of United States v. Cooley
– Timothy Q. Purdon

97 N.D. L. Rev. 319
Indian Law: Criminal Law Panel
– Panelists: Breanna Delorme, Marjorie Kohls, Joseph Vetsch
– Moderator: Michelle Rivard Parks 

97 N.D. L. Rev. 331
Creating Space For Indigenous People In Law
– Erica Thunder

ARTICLES

97 N.D. L. Rev. 343
New Federal Initiatives For Indian Country Environmental Management
– James M. Grijalva 

97 N.D. L. Rev. 355
The Extradition Clause and Indian Country
– Grant Christensen

Angela Riley on Indigenous Cultural Property Law

Angela R. Riley has published “The Ascension of Indigenous Cultural Property Law” in the Michigan Law Review.

Prof. Riley presenting the paper last fall at ASU.

Here is the abstract:

Indigenous Peoples across the world are calling on nation-states to “decolonize” laws, structures, and institutions that negatively impact them. Though the claims are broad based, there is a growing global emphasis on issues pertaining to Indigenous Peoples’ cultural property and the harms of cultural appropriation, with calls for redress increasingly framed in the language of human rights. Over the last decade, Native people have actively fought to defend their cultural property. The Navajo Nation sued Urban Outfitters to stop the sale of “Navajo panties,” the Quileute Tribe sought to enjoin Nordstrom’s marketing of “Quileute Chokers,” and the descendants of Tasunke Witko battled to end production of “Crazy Horse Malt Liquor.” And today, Indigenous Peoples are fighting to preserve sacred ceremonies and religious practices at places like Standing Rock, Oak Flat, and Bear’s Ears. Though the claims range from “lands to brands,” these conflicts are connected by a common thread: they are all contemporary examples of Indigenous Peoples’ efforts to protect their cultural property. As issues surrounding cultural property play out on the global stage, there is a parallel movement underway within Indigenous communities themselves. More than fifteen years ago, in 2005, I conducted a comprehensive study of tribal law to understand what American Indian tribes were doing to protect their own cultural property within tribal legal systems. Since my original study, the ground around issues of cultural preservation and Indigenous rights—including the 2007 adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, among others— have reignited interest in Indigenous Peoples’ own laws. Inspired by a convergence of global events impacting cultural rights, in 2020 and 2021, I set out to update my survey results and analyze the tribal cultural preservation systems and tribal laws of all 574 federally recognized American Indian tribes and Alaskan Native Villages in the United States. This Article reports those findings, situating the results in a human rights framework and leading to a core, central thesis: the data reveal a striking increase in the development of tribal cultural property laws, as Indian tribes seek to advance human and cultural rights in innovative and inspired ways. Indeed, in this Article, I contend we are witnessing a new jurisgenerative moment today in the cultural property arena, with tribal law already influencing decisionmakers at multiple ‘sites’—international, national, and subnational—in real time, with great potential for the future. To further demonstrate this phenomenon, I highlight the case study of the recent agreement to repatriate the Maaso Kova, a ceremonial deer head, from Sweden to the Yaqui peoples, and I also introduce several other examples where the seeds have been planted for the growth of the next jurisgenerative moment in Indigenous cultural property rights.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!!