Here is today’s order list.
The Court denied Samish v. Washington, an effort by the tribe to assert treaty rights, and Hawkins v. Haaland, a challenge to the Klamath Tribes’ regulation of the Klamath River.
Here is “Going Down Clutching the Constitution.”
Here.
Here is the opinion.
Briefs here.
An excerpt:
We begin by discussing the tribal exhaustion doctrine involved in this case. “[W]hen a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim arising in Indian country over which a tribal forum has colorable jurisdiction, principles of comity and the federal policy of promoting tribal self-government generally require that the plaintiff fully exhaust tribal remedies before proceeding in federal court.” Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 59 cmt. a (Am. Law Inst., Proposed Final Draft 2021).
slip op. at 14.
Maybe a little more Restatement. . . .
Post–Santa Clara Pueblo, federal review has been limited to habeas, leaving tribal courts to adjudicate any other civil rights claims. See Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 16 cmt. a (“With the exception of actions for habeas corpus relief [under § 1303, ICRA’s civil rights] guarantees are enforceable exclusively in tribal courts and other tribal fora.”).
slip op. at 21.
And more. . . .
Tribal exhaustion doctrine exists to preserve tribal sovereignty and prevent the federal courts from running roughshod over tribal legal systems. See Norton, 862 F.3d at 1243; Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 28 cmt. a (“[A]djudication of matters impairing reservation affairs by any nontribal court . . . infringes upon tribal law-making authority, because tribal courts are best qualified to interpret and apply tribal law.”).
Slip op. at 34.
Jim Diamond helpfully made a concordance of where the various talks appear during the symposium:
Here is the opinion in Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges v. Haaland.
Anchorage Daily News coverage.
Briefs:
Here.
An excerpt:
Expanding special criminal jurisdiction of Tribal courts to cover non-Native perpetrators of sexual assault, child abuse, stalking, sex trafficking, and assaults on tribal law enforcement officers on tribal lands; and supporting the development of a pilot project to enhance access to safety for survivors in Alaska Native villages.
Section 903 of H.R. 1602 (which is what I assume Congress adopted) includes the additional crimes that Indian tribes may not prosecute against non-Indians:
Continue reading
Here are the materials in Mound v. United States (D.N.D.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.