New Scholarship on Tribal Public Health Law

Aila Hoss has posted “A Framework for Tribal Public Health Law” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Law plays an integral role in advancing public health. Public health advancements in areas such as vaccine-preventable diseases, tobacco control, and motor vehicle safety have been driven by legal interventions, such as vaccination requirements for school attendance, smoke-free laws, and seat belt laws. The field of public health law continues to expand in the depth and breadth of the study of law as a tool in advancing public health. However, much of this research has focused on the state and local governments and does not contemplate the cultural, legal, and practical realities of Tribes and American Indian and Alaska Native communities.

The federal government recognizes 573 Tribes within the boundaries of the United States and maintains a government-to-government relationship with these Tribes. Unlike state and local governments, Tribes are sovereign nations and have the inherent authority to “make their own laws and be ruled by them.” This unique governing structure and relationship with the United States merits its own investigation and research in terms of public health law. Additionally, evidence has shown that American Indian and Alaska Native communities are disproportionately burdened by a variety of health outcomes including diabetes, unintentional injuries such as motor vehicle injuries, and chronic liver disease, which further supports the value of developing a framework in which to understand Tribal public health law through a Tribal lens, rather than state and local public health authorities.

This article offers a framework for public health law as applied to Tribes, whose history, culture, legal structure, and population health outcomes differ greatly from other jurisdictions. Additionally, the complexities of both federal Indian law and emerging public health crises establish a need to evaluate these issues in a systematic way. Part I of this article provides background on public health law, highlighting the insufficiency of existing scholarship in Tribal public health. Part II proposes a framework for understanding and researching Tribal public health law based on Tribal sovereignty, federal Indian law, Tribal law, and an analysis of structural violence. Finally, Part III concludes with a case study to demonstrate the need for establishing a separate framework for Tribal public health law and how this framework can support thoughtful and rigorous research in this area.

Eight Circuit Affirms Conviction of Habitual D.V. Offender

Here is the opinion in United States v. Oka.

New York Oneida Prevails in Property Dispute involving Reservation Lands

Here are the materials in Oneida Indian Nation v. Phillips (N.D. N.Y.):

32-1-oneida-motion-for-judgment.pdf

37-response.pdf

38-oneida-reply.pdf

39-1-motion-to-strike.pdf

40-response.pdf

42-surreply.pdf

43-dct-order.pdf

Prior post here.

Yurok Tribe Sues Bureau of Reclamation over Klamath River Flows

Here is the complaint in Yurok Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation (N.D. Cal.):

1-complaint-1.pdf

Arthur Lazarus Jr. Has Died

Obituary here.

Split Eighth Circuit Panel Affirms Constitutionality of North Dakota Election Law Designed to Dilute the Indian Country Vote

Here is the opinion in Brakebill v. Jaeger.

Materials and other coverage here.

Federal Court Declines Jurisdiction over Nisqually Officials under Ex parte Young

Here are the new materials in Bell v. City of Lacey (W.D. Wash.):

53-bell-response-to-tribe-mtd.pdf

58-dct-order.pdf

Prior pleadings, including the tribe’s motion on the pleadings (docket no. 36), are here.

Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria Cert Petition

Here:

cert-petition.pdf

Questions presented:

“[T]he inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe.” Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). The Montana Court recognized two limited narrow exceptions to that rule. But the Court has never resolved the question of whether tribal courts may ever exercise civil tort jurisdiction over nonmembers. In Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008) and in Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC v. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, et. al. 136 S.Ct. 2159 (2016) the issue was brought before this Court, but unanswered. This case presents the issue of: Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers?

Further this case presents the issue of: If the Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims over nonmembers, what is the prerequisite notice of any such authority, what is the prerequisite consent thereto by a nonmember, and what is the viable scope of such jurisdiction so as to satisfy the Due Process rights of a nonmember?

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

Brief in Opposition–PDFA

Bridge Magazine: “Before debates, Gretchen Whitmer urges Democrats to protect Great Lakes”

Here.

Federal Court Dismisses Defamation Suit against WaPo by that Smirking Kid in D.C.

Here is the opinion in Sandmann v. WP Company LLC (N.D. Ky.):

sandmann-decision.pdf

H/T Above the Law.