Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Saginaw Chippewa Disenrollees Win Small Victory against Interior

January 11, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Cavazos v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

18-2 Saginaw Chippewa Motion to Intervene

21 Cavazos Motion for Summary Judgment

26 Saginaw Chippewa Cross Motion for Summary

29 Federal Cross Motion for Summary

34 Cavazos Reply

38 Saginaw Chippewa Reply

39 Federal Reply

40-1 Cavazos Proposed Surreply

48 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This administrative law case centers on a U.S. Department of the Interior’s (“Interior”) decision (“AS-IA Decision”), after an informal adjudication, to decline to intervene in tribal disenrollment proceedings by the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan (“Tribe”). Plaintiffs are former members of the Tribe who have since been disenrolled by Tribal leadership. Plaintiffs charge that a federal statute particular to the Tribe, the Judgment Funds Act, PL 99-346, 100 Stat. 674 (1986) (“JFA”), required Interior to intervene in and put a stop to Tribal disenrollment proceedings. In their only claim before the Court, Plaintiffs argue that Interior’s inaction was arbitrary and/or capricious within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500 et seq. (“APA”). As a remedy, Plaintiffs seek not just a remand back to the agency, but an order from this Court mandating Interior’s intervention to reverse the Tribe’s disenrollment proceedings.
In support thereof, Plaintiffs focus primarily on statutory provisions in the JFA governing (1) antidiscrimination against tribal members enrolled after the JFA’s enactment and (2) Interior’s supervision of the JFA. Ultimately, the Court agrees with Interior that the plain meaning of the JFA: (1) does not classify disenrollment as discrimination and (2) grants Interior broad discretion to intervene in Tribal disputes related to the JFA. However, the Court holds that Interior incorrectly read the JFA to bar discrimination only against enrolled members of the Tribe. Because the JFA also bars the Tribe from discriminating against disenrolled members in access to benefits and services funded by the JFA, the Court shall remand the matter to Interior to reconsider whether it should exercise its discretionary authority to intervene in the alleged inequitable provision of such benefits and services.

Prior post here.

SCOTUS Holds Brackeen and Oklahoma’s McGirt Petitions, Other Petitions Denied

January 10, 2022January 10, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Today’s order list.

The petitions in Haggerty, Stand Up, GRE Six Nations, and Tanner were all denied (see prior post).

The court also denied three McGirt-related petitions from Oklahoma prisoners:

Parish Petition/Amicus/BIO/Reply

Davis Petition

Compelleebee Petition

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Menominee Indian Tribe v. Lexington Insurance Company

January 10, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Menominee Opening Brief

Other briefs TK

Lower court materials here.

Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Brings Rights of Nature Claims against City of Seattle in Tribal Court over Skagit River Dams

January 10, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle (Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court):

SAU-CIV-01-22-001 Civil Complaint

SAU-CIV-01-22-001 Summons

Fletcher, Fort, and Singel: “Defending the Indian Child Welfare Act”

January 9, 2022January 9, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From November 2021:

Lani Guinier Walks On

January 7, 2022January 7, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

NYTs, here.

Professor Guinier came to the 2021 Michigan State Law Review symposium on Wenona Singel’s paper, “Indian Tribes and Human Rights Accountability.”

Prof. Guinier (center), with Gerald Torres (left) and Joe Gone (right)

This one hurts a lot. Singel’s tribute on FB is worth a read.

Big Day for Indian Law at the January 7 SCOTUS Conference [a mini-long conference???]

January 7, 2022January 7, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Several Indian law cert petitions are set for discussion today at the Supreme Court’s conference (which is their fancy way of saying they’re meeting as a group of 9 to discuss pending cases; where they decide whether or not to accept a cert petition). Here’s a list:

The Brackeen/ICWA petitions

Grand River Six Nations Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton

Haggerty v. United States

Several of the McGirt-related petitions

Yet another Stand Up petition

Tanner v. Cayuga

The fun keeps going next week:

Klickitat County v. Yakama Nation Cert Petition

And the week after that:

Dakota Access v. Standing Rock

Split Tenth Circuit Rules in Ute Indian Tribe v. Lawrence

January 7, 2022January 7, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. An excerpt describing the holding:

This appeal marks the latest chapter in a long-running contract dispute between the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (the Tribe) and Lynn Becker, a non-Indian. The contract concerned Becker’s work marketing and developing the Tribe’s mineral resources on the Ute reservation. Almost seven years ago, Becker sued the Tribe in Utah state court for allegedly breaching the contract by failing to pay him a percentage of certain revenue the Tribe received from its mineral holdings. Later, the Tribe filed this lawsuit, challenging the state court’s subject matter jurisdiction under federal law. The district court denied the Tribe’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the state-court proceedings, and the Tribe appeals.
We reverse and hold that the Tribe is entitled to injunctive relief. The district court’s factual findings establish that Becker’s state-court claims arose on the reservation because no substantial part of the conduct supporting them occurred elsewhere. And because the claims arose on the reservation, the state court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction absent congressional authorization.

Briefs here.