Opinion in Pueblo of Jemez v. United States

Here is the opinion:

404 DCT Opinion

An excerpt:

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the bench trial held on October 29-November 20, 2018; November 29-November 30, 2018; December 3, 2018; December 5, 2018; and December 13, 2018. The primary issue is whether Plaintiff Pueblo of Jemez has the exclusive right to use, occupy, and possess the lands of the Valles Caldera National Preserve (“Valles Caldera”) pursuant to its allegedly unextinguished and continuing aboriginal title to those lands. The Court concludes that Jemez Pueblo has not established aboriginal title to the Valles Caldera. Although the evidence proves that Jemez Pueblo has actually and continuously used and occupied the Valles Caldera for a long time, the evidence also shows that many Pueblos and Tribes also used the Valles Caldera in ways that defeat Jemez Pueblo’s aboriginal title claim.

Earlier posts here.

Fort McDermitt Prevails over IHS on Clinic in Oregon

Here are the materials in Fort McDermitt Paiute & Shoshone Tribe v. Azar (formerly Price) (D.D.C.):

31 Tribe Second MSJ

33-1 US Second MSJ

35 Tribe Reply

37 US Reply

40 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Alex Skibine on Legislating Tribal Civil Jurisdiction Over Non-Members

Alexander Tallchief Skibine has posted a very interesting paper, “Incorporation Without Assimilation: Legislating Tribal Civil Jurisdiction Over Non-Members,” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in the UCLA Law Review Discourse.

The abstract:

For the last 40 years the Supreme Court has been engaged in a measured attack on the sovereignty of Indian tribes when it comes to tribal court jurisdiction over people who are not members of the tribe asserting that jurisdiction. The Congress has already enacted legislation partially restoring some tribal courts’ criminal jurisdiction over non-members. This Essay proposes to legislatively reconfirm the civil jurisdiction of tribal courts over such non-members. After examining the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area and summarizing the Court’s main concerns with such tribal jurisdiction, this Essay explores various legislative options before settling on a preferred course of action. The proposal set forth in the last part of this Essay would reconfirm tribal court civil jurisdiction over non-members provided the tribal courts has established personal jurisdiction over the parties. However, tribal courts’ determinations on this subject would be appealable to federal courts. Furthermore, the Essay proposes to allow non-members being sued in tribal courts the option of removing their cases to federal courts under certain conditions.

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Cert Petition in Gaming Matter

Here is the petition in Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas v. Texas:

alabama-coushatta-tribe-of-texas-cert-petition.pdf

Questions presented:

Whether IGRA authorizes gaming on tribal lands previously governed by trust statutes that prohibited gaming, as the National Indian Gaming Commission, the Department of the Interior, and the First Circuit have concluded, or not, as the Fifth Circuit has held.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

ncai-amicus-brief.pdf

ysleta-amicus-curiae-brief.pdf

texas-bio.pdf

National Indian Law Library Bulletin (9/25/2019)

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 9/25/19.

Federal Courts Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2019.html
Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management (Fiduciary Trust; Geothermal Steam Act)
Dakota Rural Action v. Noem (Keystone XL Pipeline)

U.S. Legislation – 116th Congress Bulletin
https://narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/116_uslegislation.html
The following bills were recently proposed in the House and the Senate:
H.R.4449 – To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to add access to telecommunications and information services in Indian country
S.2534 – A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
S.2541 – A bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin (contact us if you need help finding a copy of an article)
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2019.html

  • ICWA and the unwed father.
  • Native American religious freedom as a collective right.
  • Judge Murphy’s Indian law legacy.
  • Not all Agua is Caliente: Proposing the Winters groundwater test.

 

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

  • ‘It has been a long time coming’: Minnesota MMIW Task Force to hold first meeting
  • Tribal Coastal Resiliency Act inches forward on Capitol Hill
  • United Methodist Church gives historic mission site and land back to Wyandotte Nation
  • Grant-funded Native American treatment court produces first graduates in Great Falls
  • Ponca Chief Standing Bear completes one last journey of triumph
  • New Mexico delegation announces funding for Native libraries

HCN: “The Klamath River now has the legal rights of a person”

Here.

Briefs in Cayuga Nation Internal Conflicts

Here are the materials in Cayuga Nation v. Campbell (N.Y. A.D.):

Appellants Brief

Reply Brief

Respondent Brief

Amicus Brief

Briefs in Short Term Loan/Sovereign Immunity Matter involving Lac Du Flambeau Ojibwe President

Here are the materials so far in Jones v. Wildcat (E.D. Pa.):

2019.06.07-docket-1-complaint-with-exhibits.pdf

2019.08.30-docket-9-wildcat-mtd.pdf

2019.09.23-22-jones-response-mtd.pdf

2019.09.23-22-1-jones-aff.pdf

Danielle Delaney on Environmental Law, Indigenous Identity, and #NoDAPL

Danielle Delaney has published “Under Coyote’s Mask: Environmental Law, Indigenous Identity, and #NoDAPL” in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law.

The abstract:

This Article studies the relationship between the three main lawsuits filed by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DaPL) and the mass protests launched from the Sacred Stone and Oceti Sakowin protest camps. The use of environmental law as the primary legal mechanism to challenge the construction of the pipeline distorted the indigenous demand for justice as U.S. federal law is incapable of seeing the full depth of the indigenous worldview supporting their challenge. Indigenous activists constantly re-centered the direct actions and protests within indigenous culture to remind non-indigenous activists and the wider media audience that the protests were an indigenous protest, rather than a purely environmental protest, a distinction that was obscured as the litigation progressed. The NoDAPL protests, the litigation to prevent the completion and later operation of the pipeline, and the social movement that the protests engendered, were an explosive expression of indigenous resistance—resistance to systems that silence and ignore indigenous voices while attempting to extract resources from their lands and communities. As a case study, the protests demonstrate how the use of litigation, while often critical to achieving the goals of political protest, distorts the expression of politics not already recognized within the legal discourse.

Federal Court Grants Default Judgment in Federal Action to Enforce Section 184 Mortgage but Requires Gov’t to Answer Tribe’s Affirmative Defenses

Here are the materials in United States v. Estate of Gallegos (D.S.D.):

1-complaint-4.pdf

6-oglala-sioux-tribe-answer.pdf

15-motion-for-default.pdf

16-brief-in-support.pdf

17-dct-order.pdf

22 US Motion to Correct Judgment

26 Amended DCT Order