Supplemental Briefs on Standing in Hooper v. Tulsa

Here:

Oral argument audio here.

Briefs here.

Jaune Smith

South Dakota Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Oglala Sioux Tribe’s Demand for Federal Law Enforcement Funding

Here are the updated materials in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. United States (D.S.D.):

Prior post with additional briefs here.

Jaune Smith

Sixth Circuit Denies Intervention to Third Party Org in United States v. Michigan Treaty Litigation

Here is the order in United States v. Michigan.

Briefs:

Kalae Trask on Oral Tradition in U.S. and Canadian Courts

Kalae Trask has published “Toward Mutual Recognition: An Investigation of Oral Tradition Evidence in the United States and Canada” in the Washington Journal of Social and Environmental Justice.

The abstract:

United States (“U.S.”) courts have long failed to recognize the value of oral traditional evidence (“OTE”) in the law. Yet, for Indigenous peoples, OTE forms the basis of many of their claims to place, property, and political power. In Canada, courts must examine Indigenous OTE on “equal footing” with other forms of admissible evidence. While legal scholars have suggested applying Canadian precedent to U.S. law regarding OTE, scholarship has generally failed to critically examine the underlying ethos of settler courts as a barrier to OTE admission and usefulness. This essay uses the work of political philosopher, James Tully, to examine OTE not just as evidence, but as an exercise of Indigenous self-determination. By recognizing the inherent political nature of OTE, U.S. courts may expand on Canadian law to build a “just relationship” with Indigenous peoples.

Harvard Law Review Casenote on Silva v. Parrish

Here.

Link to the opinion here.

Updated Materials in Eagle Bear v. Blackfeet Cancelled Lease Dispute [now in bankruptcy]

Here are the materials in Eagle Bear Inc. v. Blackfeet Indian Nation (D. Mont.) (No. 22-93):

4 Second Amended Complaint

23 Eagle Bear MSJ

25 BIA MSJ

28 Blackfeet MSJ

44 Independence Bank MSJ

48 Eagle Bear Response to BIA Motion

50 Eagle Bear Response to Blackfeet

52 Blackfeet Response to BIA

54 Blackfeet Response to Eagle Bear

56 Independence Bank Response to Blackfeet

59 Blackfeet Motion to Dismiss Count 2 of Bank Complaint

62 Blackfeet Response to Independence Bank

65 Blackfeet MSJ re Bank Count 1

68 Eagle Bear Reply in support of 23

69 BIA Reply in support of 25

70 Independence Bank Response to 59

71 Independence Bank Reply in support of 44

74 Independence Bank Response to 65

79 Blackfeet Reply in support of 65

82 BIA Motion to Dismiss Bank Complaint

84 Independence Bank Response to 82

86 BIA Reply in support of 82

93 Eagle Bear Motion to Conduct Further Discovery

97 Blackfeet Response to 93

98 DCT Order Granting Motion for Discovery

100 Eagle Bear Motion for Additional Discovery Time

101 Blackfeet Response to 100

102 Eagle Reply in support of 100

104 DCT Order Granting More Discovery Time

Prior post here.

Mitchell Forbes on Powers of Alaska Tribes without Reservations

Mitchell Forbes has published “Beyond Indian Country: The Sovereign Powers of Alaska Tribes Without Reservations” in the Alaska Law Review. PDF

Here is the abstract:

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) devised a land entitlement system markedly different from the Indian reservation system that prevailed in the Lower 48 states. It directed the creation of twelve, for-profit Alaska Native regional corporations and over 200 private, for-profit Alaska Native village corporations, which would receive the bulk of Native land in the state. This corporate model left nearly all tribes in Alaska without a land base. As such, there is very little Indian Country land in the state over which tribes can exercise territorial-based sovereignty. Yet, the Supreme Court has long recognized the power of tribes to exercise membership-based jurisdiction. This Comment analyzes a range of state and federal court decisions addressing the authority of tribes and argues that Alaska tribes, through membership-based jurisdiction, can exercise various sovereign powers, like the exclusion of nonmembers. Importantly, this membership-based jurisdiction does not depend on lands over which tribes can exercise jurisdiction. Therefore, the exclusionary orders imposed by several Alaska Native tribes during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 were valid exercises of the tribes’ sovereign powers.

Highly recommended.

Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation Cert Petition [Rule 19 & Tribal Immunity]

Here:

Question presented:

Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires dismissal of an action challenging a federal agency’s use of water subject to state-adjudicated water rights if a Native American tribe asserts an interest in the suit and does not consent to joinder.

Lower court materials here.

Jaune Smith

NPR Code Switch Episode on ICWA (feat. Rebecca Nagle)

Bad River Ojibwe Moves to Shut Down Line 5 after Spring Flooding Exposes Line 5 Pipeline

Here are new materials in Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Enbridge Energy Co. Inc. (W.D. Wis.):