Berkhofer Lecture — Angeline Boulley — November 2, 2023
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Tribal Law Journal Symposium on the 200th Anniversary of Johnson v. McIntosh — November 9, 2023
Tenth Circuit Decides Challenge to Indian Status of Cherokee Citizen Victim in Indian Country Crimes Act Case
Texas Federal Court Dismisses Title VII Suit against Alaska Regional Corp.
Here are the materials in Balli v. Akima Global Services LLC (S.D. Tex.):
Sarah Crawford, Reneau J. Longoria and Heather Whiteman Runs Him on 2023’s Major SCOTUS Decisions
Sarah Crawford, Reneau J. Longoria and Heather Whiteman Runs Him have published “Decisions Impacting Indian Country in the 2023 Supreme Court Term” in the Montana Lawyer.
SCOTUS Denies Stay in West Flagler Suit
Here are the materials in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland:
Order Denying Stay + Kavanaugh Statement
Lower court materials here.
Seneca-Cayuga Sued for Political Banishments
Here are the materials so far in Channing v. Seneca-Cayuga Nation (N.D. Okla.):
California COA Affirms Application of Sovereign Immunity in Employment Termination Dispute
Here is the unpublished opinion in Mapp v. Viejas Band Of Kumeyaay Indians (Cal. Ct. App.):
An excerpt:
Mapp’s claims in this case relate to his employment by the Band and its potential termination based on the Band’s provision of a conditional license via its officials. He seeks to allege a violation of Family Code section 5290, which permits assessment of a civil penalty against an “employer” for specified conduct.9 That remedy and any judgment would be expressly against the Band. Mapp’s other damages related to negative employment decisions likewise would effectively obligate the Band, not personally the individuals who were implementing the Band’s gaming license rules and conditions. In short, the Band is the real party in interest, and sovereign immunity extends to the individual defendants.
Wyoming SCT Issues Mixed Opinion in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Baldwin, Crocker, and Rudd
Here.
An excerpt:
BCR did not comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 11, and the district court erred when it imposed Rule 11 sanctions on the Tribe. The district court’s order imposing Rule 11 sanctions is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the district court with direction that the order imposing sanctions be vacated. We affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment on the accounting claim because the Tribe could not bring a cause of action for an accounting under W.R.P.C. 1.15(e), and the Tribe failed to show its conversion and civil theft claim was not an adequate remedy at law. We affirm the jury’s verdict after finding the Tribe failed to show the verdict would have been more favorable to the Tribe if the racially charged evidence and argument had not been admitted.
Briefs here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.