
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
FTCA Suit Brought against Federal Bureau of Prisons for Death of Andrea Circle Bear
Here is the complaint in LeBeau v. United States (D.S.D.):
We posted news coverage here way back when. Ms. Circle Bear was the first federal prisoner to die of COVID in 2020. According to the complaint, she was 8 months pregnant in March 2020 when the government decided to transfer her to a prison in Texas, where she immediately contracted the virus. She gave birth while intubated.
Sad News — KBIC Judge Bill Jondreau Walks On
GTB Citizen and Journalist to Discuss Michigan Indian Boarding Schools at Ann Arbor District Library on April 24
Here.

Ninth Circuit Reinstates Alaska’s Challenge to Kake Emergency Subsistence Hunt
New Mexico SCT Suspends Lawyer for 18 Months for Criticizing Judge in Navajo Water Rights Case
Colorado Federal Court Refuses to Accept Plea Deal for Lesser Included Offense in Major Crimes Act Prosecution
Here are the materials in United States v. English (D. Colo.):
33 Joint Memorandum in Support of Plea Agreement
36 Magistrate Minute Order: “This Court does not have jurisdiction over the charge in the proposed Plea Agreement. . . .”
An excerpt:
The Major Crimes Act represents one way in which Congress has permitted federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over crimes occurring on tribal lands which otherwise would be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribal courts. Now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1153, the Act gives federal courts exclusive federal jurisdiction over certain enumerated felonies occurring between Indians in Indian Country, including, specifically, “a felony assault under section 113.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 1153(a). See also United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 669 (10th Cir. 1999). Prosecution of crimes not expressly designated in section 1153, including, specifically, simple assault – is reserved to the tribal courts, in recognition of their inherent sovereignty over such matters. United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 643 n.1, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 1397 n.1, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977); United States v. Quiver, 241 U.S. 602, 700-01, 36 S.Ct. 699, 605-06, 60 L.Ed. 1196 (1916); United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 668-69 (10thCir. 1999). See also United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 199, 124 S.Ct. 1628, 1632-33, 158 L.Ed.2d 420 (2004) (“[25 U.S.C. § 1301] says that it ‘recognize[s] and affirm[s]’ in each tribe the ‘inherent’ tribal power … to prosecute nonmember Indians for misdemeanors.”).
Update in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Land Claim against United States and City of Pocatello
Here are the materials in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. United States (D. Idaho):
114-1 Tribe Motion to Reconsider
Prior post here.

Velchik and Zhang — An Empirical Examination of Restoring Reservation Status in Oklahoma
Michael K. Velchik & Jeffery Y. Zhang have published “Restoring Indian Reservation Status: An Empirical Analysis” in the Yale Journal on Regulation. PDF
I posted about this excellent article a while back when it was in draft form.

Fletcher on Tribal Customary Law and an Indigenous Canon of Construction
Check out “The Three Lives of Mamengwaa: Toward an Indigenous Canon of Construction” on SSRN.
Abstract:
This paper will survey the history of tribal courts, which allows for an explanation for the reasons behind the relatively minimal impact tribal courts have had on Indian country governance, drawing on the work of Rob Porter. The paper will then turn to the monumental changes in tribal judiciaries and in tribal legal practice of the last few decades, which in turn allows for a discussion about several recent tribal court decisions that could signal a future where tribal courts play a far greater role in regulating Indian country governance through the application of customary law, drawing on the work of Wenona Singel. Finally, the paper offers preliminary thoughts on whether adding robust tribal judicial regulation to an already crowded field of Indian country governance is normatively beneficial. Short answer? Yes. Many of the intractable political disputes that plague tribal governance can be traced to the reliance by tribal governments on state and federal legal principles that are deeply flawed and have limited value in Indigenous contexts. I suggest the acknowledgment of an Indigenous Canon of Construction of tribal laws by tribal judiciaries that limit the impact of colonization on tribal nations.



You must be logged in to post a comment.