Here:
25 Oneida Motion for Summary J
46 DCT Order on Preliminary Motions
62 Hobart Response to Motion to Clarify
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Ninth Circuit Remands Makah v. Quileute/Quinault Ocean U&A Dispute
Here is the opinion in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe.
Briefs are here.
Update on Same Sex Marriage Case at Ak-Chin Community
Michigan COA Rules Former Tribal Official with Criminal Record Not Eligible for State and Local Office
Here is the opinion in Paquin v. City of St. Ignace:
An excerpt:
In light of the foregoing, we hold that the Tribe constitutes a local government and that plaintiff’s employment with the Tribe constituted employment in “local, state, or federal government” for purposes of Const 1963, art XI, § 8. Such a holding does not diminish or undermine the Tribe’s inherent sovereign authority. “[S]tate laws are generally not applicable to tribal Indians on an Indian reservation except where Congress has explicitly provided that state law shall apply.” Huron Potawatomi, Inc v Stinger, 227 Mich App 127, 132; 574 NW2d 706 (1997). In the instant case, no one is seeking to prohibit plaintiff from running for a position in the Tribe or otherwise to interfere in the Tribe’s regulation of its internal matters. Instead, Const 1963, art 11, § 8 is being applied to prohibit plaintiff from running for a position on defendant’s city council. In other words, the constitutional provision is being used to assess the qualification of a potential candidate for a position on the city council of a Michigan municipality, not a position in the Tribe. “The members of the various Indian tribes are citizens of the United States and citizens of the state within which they reside.” Mich United Conservation Clubs v Anthony, 90 Mich App 99, 109; 280 NW2d 883 (1979) (citations omitted). In seeking to run for an elective position in a Michigan city, plaintiff was acting in his capacity as a Michigan citizen rather than a member of the Tribe. As a Michigan citizen, plaintiff is subject to the same laws as other Michigan citizens when seeking to run for an office in a Michigan municipality. See generally, Mescalero Apache Tribe v Jones, 411 US 145, 148-149; 93 S Ct 1267; 36 L Ed 2d 114 (1973) (“Absent express federal law to the contrary, Indians going beyond reservation boundaries have generally been held subject to non-discriminatory state law otherwise applicable to all citizens of the State.”).
Alex Skibine on the Last 30 Years of Indian Law in the Supreme Court
Alexander Tallchief Skibine has posted “The Supreme Court’s Last 30 Years of Federal Indian Law: Looking for Equilibrium or Supremacy?” He presented this paper at the PLSI 50th Anniversary.
Here is the abstract:
Since 1831, Indian nations have been viewed as Domestic Dependent Nations located within the geographical boundaries of the United States. Although Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged that Indian nations had a certain amount of sovereignty, the exact extent of such sovereignty as well as the place of tribes within the federal system has remained ill-defined. This Article examines what has been the role of the Supreme Court in integrating Indian nations as the third Sovereign within our federalist system. The Article accomplishes this task by examining the Court’s Indian law record in the last 30 years. The comprehensive survey of Indian law decisions indicates that the Court has had difficulties upholding the federal policy of respecting tribal sovereignty and encouraging tribal self-government. After categorizing the cases between victories and losses, the Article divides the cases into four categories: Federal common law, statutory interpretation, constitutional law, and procedural law. The cases are then further divided into four general areas: 1. Tribal Sovereign/Political rights, 2. Economic Rights (treaty/property rights), 3. Rights derived from the trust relationship, and 4. Cultural/Religious rights.
The Article next focuses on the interaction between the Court and Congress concerning the incorporation of tribes as the third sovereign within the federalist system. This Part first evaluates Congress’s response to Supreme Court cases and then looks at the Court’s response to congressional legislation. The Article ends by arguing that through its disproportionate use of federal common law in its Indian law decisions, the Court has not attempted to reach a consensus with Congress about the place of Indian nations within our federalism. Instead, it has aimed to establish what the Court perceives should be the proper equilibrium between tribal interests on one hand and the non-Indian/state interests on the other.
Amerind Insurance Prevails over Blackfeet Housing
Here are the materials in Amerind Risk Management Corp. v. Blackfeet Housing Authority (D.N.M.):
28-1 amerind motion for summary j
Prior post here.
Splinter: “The Long Thorny History of the Cherokee Who Owned African Slaves”
Here.
ProPublica: “It’s a Fact: Supreme Court Errors Aren’t Hard to Find”
Here.
National Indian Law Library Bulletin (10/11/2017)
Here:
The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 10/11/17.
U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2017-2018update.html
Petition was filed in Kansas v. National Indian Gaming Commission (Indian Lands – Gaming)
Petition was filed in Herrera v. Wyoming (Treaty Hunting Rights)
Petition was denied in French v. Starr (Tribal Jurisdiction – Non-member)
Petition for certiorari was denied in Williams v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians (Employment Law; Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
Petition for certiorari was denied in Hackford v. Utah (Criminal Jurisdiction)
News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Energy & Environment section, see a couple of stories about the current status of the Dakota Access pipeline.
Tribal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/tribal/2017.html
Contereras v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
Frank v. Jackson (Employment Law – Wrongful Termination)
U.S. Federal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2017.html
County of Amador v. United States Department of the Interior (Land into Trust)
Sturgeon v. Frost (Alaska National Preserve – Regulation of Hovercraft)
United States v. Long (Criminal Law – Prohibited Person in Possession of Firearm)
United States of America v. State of New Mexico (Indian Water Rights)
Forest County Potawatomi Community v. Zinke (Gaming; Freedom of Information Act)
Baley v. United States (Indian Water Rights – Klamath Project)
FMC Corporation v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribal Jurisdiction – Permit Fees)
Begay v. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act – Relocation Benefits)
State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.html
Wilkes and Russell v. PCI Gaming Authority (Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
Rape v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians (Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
Harrison v. PCI Gaming Authority (Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2017.html
The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking input on the department’s strategic plan 2018-2022.
U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/115_uslegislation.html
The following bills were added:
H.R.3873: Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017.
S.1953: A bill to amend the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2020 and the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to provide for advancements in public safety services to Indian communities, and for other purposes.
S.1895: A bill to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, and for other purposes.
S.1942: A bill to direct the Attorney General to review, revise, and develop law enforcement and justice protocols appropriate to address missing and murdered Indians, and for other purposes.
H.R.3917: To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend funding for the special diabetes program for Indians.
H.R.2402: San Juan County Settlement Implementation Act.
H.R.3894: Tribal Heritage and Grizzly Bear Protection Act.
S.1948: A bill to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes as a defense in inter partes review of patents.
Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2017.html
We feature these articles:
Columbia River tribal housing: Federal progress addressing long unmet obligations.
Indigenizing equality.
High Country News: “Northern California tribes face down massive wildfires”
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.