Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Senate Committee Hearing: “Oversight Hearing on ‘Evaluating the Response and Mitigation to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Native Communities’ and Legislative Hearing to Receive Testimony on S. 3650′”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Arizona COA Holds Hopi Tribe Owes $300K in Attorney Fees to Arizona Snowbowl

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Hopi Tribe v. Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership:

Unpublished Opinion

The case is on remand from the Arizona Supreme Court, which rejected the tribe’s public nuisance theories here.

Federal Court Dismisses Effort by Oglala Sioux Constitutional Reform Committee to Support Secretarial Election

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in New Holy v. Dept. of the Interior (D.S.D.):

1 Complaint

9 Motion to Dismiss

21 DCT Order Staying Discovery

22 Opposition

26 Reply

28 DCT Order

Kansas Court Rule on Recognition of Tribal Court Judgments

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Rule-110C.pdf_Tribal Judgments_ext

Tyee: “Security Camera Captures Heavily Armed RCMP at Wet’suwet’en Cultural Site”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

St. Regis Mohawk Sues Insurance Company over Pandemic Losses

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co. (N.D. N.Y.):

1-4 Complaint

Puyallup Tribe Amicus Brief on Washington Referendum on Motor Vehicle Taxes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the brief in Garfield County v. State of Washington (Wash. S. Ct.):

Puyallup Amicus Brief

WaPo: “As opioids flooded tribal lands across the U.S., overdose deaths skyrocketed.”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

This case presents the question whether the State of Washington may exercise criminal jurisdiction over members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation who commit crimes on reservation land. To answer that question, we must interpret a 2014 Washington State Proclamation that retroceded—that is, gave back—“in part,” civil and criminal jurisdiction over the Yakama Nation to the United States, but retained criminal jurisdiction over matters “involving non-Indian defendants and non-Indian victims.” If “and,” as used in that sentence, is conjunctive, then the State retained jurisdiction only over criminal cases in which no party—suspects or victims—is an Indian. If, by contrast, “and” is disjunctive and should be read as “or,” then the State retained jurisdiction if any party is a non-Indian. We conclude, based on the entire context of the Proclamation, that “and” is disjunctive and must be read as “or.” We therefore affirm the district court.

Briefs here. Oral argument video here.

Bridge Magazine: “‘End of an era’: American Indian Services closes after 49 years”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.