Red Cliff Ojibwe Prevails over Bayfield County in Zoning Dispute

Here are the materials in Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Bayfield County (W.D. Wis.):

1 Complaint

11 Tribe MSJ

12 Williams Affidavit

12-1 Exhibit A

12-2 Exhibit B

12-3 Exhibit C

12-4 Exhibit D

16 Opposition

20 Reply

21-1 Surreply

26-1 Tribe Post-Hearing Brief

31 DCT Order

Excerpt:

Plaintiff Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians seeks a declaratory judgment that enforcement of defendant Bayfield County’s zoning code on fee simple land held by tribal members within the Red Cliff Band Reservation violates federal Indian law. Before the court is plaintiff’s fully briefed motion for summary judgment (dkt. #10), on which the court heard oral argument on November 21, 2019. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that it is not unmistakably clear that Congress intended to allow application of the County’s zoning regulations on land held by tribal members within the boundary of the reservation. 

Snoqualmie Tribes Sues for Treaty of Point Elliott Rights

Here is the complaint in Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):

1-complaint-1-1.pdf

Navajo Sues Interior over Fee-to-Trust Notice Rules

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Ariz.):

1-complaint-1.pdf

California COA Rejects Fourth Effort by Private Party to Shut Down Beer Sales by Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

Here is the unpublished opinion in Barrett v. Selnek-is Tem-al Corp.:

barrett-opinion.pdf

Tenth Circuit Affirms United States v. Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

We recognize that in interpreting federal statutes in Indian affairs we “provide for a broad construction when the issue is whether Indian rights are reserved or established, and for a narrow construction when Indian rights are to be abrogated or limited.” Felter, 752 F.2d at 1512; see also F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 224–25 (1982). In Felter, we determined the hunting and fishing rights of the individuals were not abrogated because the statute did not clearly abrogate them—this is a narrowing construction. But we cannot also conclude that the Termination Act implicitly gave the Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe authority to exercise Ute tribal rights with respect to hunting and fishing, when the Act plainly established those rights within the Ute Tribe.

Briefs here.

American Indian Law Review, Volume 43, Issue 2

Here:

Current Issue: Volume 43, Number 2 (2019)

Article

Comment

Notes

Special Feature

National Indian Law Library Bulletin (1/8/2020)

Here:

We have scoured the web. Here are some of the latest materials related to Indian Law. Find all of the latest updates at narf.org/nill/bulletins/

U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2019-2020update.html
Petition for certiorari was filed in this case on 12/23/19:
McMahon v. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe (Reservation Diminishment)

Federal Courts Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2020.html
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Hendrickson (National Historic Preservation Act)
Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Big Man (Sovereign Immunity)
Eglise Baptiste Bethanie de St. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida (Sovereign Immunity)

State Courts Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2020.html
The People in the Interest of S.B. (Indian Child Welfare Act)

Tribal Courts Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/tribal/2020.html
Martell v. Fort Peck Tribes (Court Procedure)
Moon v. Hoopa Valley Tribe (Employee Termination)

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin (contact us if you need help finding a copy of an article)
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2020.html

  • Aboriginal rights and constitutional conflict: The Marshall court, state federal and sovereignty and Native American rights under the 1789 constitution.
  • Nothing is over: FTCA claims for toxic torts on Native lands.
  • Green means go: Tribes rush to regulate cannabis in Indian Country.
  • Waived: The detrimental implications of U.S. immigration and border security measures on southern border tribes–an analysis of the impact of President Trump’s border wall on the Tohono O’odham Nation.

News Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
This week, in brief:

  • New Muscogee (Creek) Nation leaders take office
  • Indigenous song keepers reveal traditional ecological knowledge in music
  • Native Americans fight historical discrimination to lower diabetes, obesity rates
  • South Dakota state of the tribes speech is like ‘trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube’
  • Open letter on Mauna Kea by Violet Pohakuku’i’ai Lui
  • Montana extends Spring Creek Mine permit, questions over tribal immunity remain
  • Why are Diné LGBTQ+ and Two Spirit people being denied access to ceremony?
  • Letter to the editor: Stitt’s attack on tribes follow the Trail of Tears pattern

Federal Court Transfers Narragansett Consultation Claims against Federal Highway Admin. to D.C. District Court

Here are the materials in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Hendrickson (D. R.I.):

12 Motion to Dismiss

14 Tribe Motion to Transfer Venue

16 US Opposition to 14

17 Reply in Support of 14

18 Tribe Opposition to 12

20 Reply in Support of 12

21 Tribe Motion for Reconsideration

23 DCt Order Granting 14 on Reconsideration

Complaint here.

Most Claims against Federal Approvals of Keystone XL Allowed to Proceed

Here is the order in Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Trump (D. Mont.):

92 DCT Order

Briefs here.

Jolene Yazzie: “Why are Diné LGBTQ+ and Two Spirit people being denied access to ceremony?”

Here, from High Country News.