Here:
| The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 8/31/17.
U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin News Bulletin U.S. Federal Courts Bulletin State Courts Bulletin Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin U.S. Regulatory Bulletin U.S. Legislation Bulletin |
From Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, here.
Here are the materials in Rosales v. Dutschke (E.D. Cal.):
62-1 Tribally Related Defendants Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Forsythe v. Reno-Sparks Indian Colony (D. Nev.):
19 Wood Rodgers Inc Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 17-1 (Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation) (W.D. Wash.):
1-1 Skokomish Request for Determination
21 S’Klallam Tribes Motion to Dismiss
Here is “This Trump appointee says it was hackers, not him, who called Obama’s mom a ‘w@!re’” from CNN.
Here is the article noting the resignation.
Here is the opinion in Cherokee Nation v. Nash (D.D.C.).
More details tomorrow.
An excerpt:
The Court finds it confounding that the Cherokee Nation historically had no qualms about regarding freedmen as Cherokee “property” yet continues, even after 150 years, to balk when confronted with the legal imperative to treat them as Cherokee people. While the Cherokee Nation might persist in its design to perpetuate a moral injustice, this Court will not be complicit in the perpetuation of a legal injustice.
Here are the materials in Kialegee Tribal Town v. Dellinger (N.D. Okla.):
an excerpt:
The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case because plaintiffs have not shown in their complaint that the Court would be required to resolve a substantial and disputed question of federal law. Plaintiffs’ complaint identifies an issue of federal law concerning the enforcement of IGRA by an Indian tribe, but plaintiffs have not adequately alleged facts supporting even an inference that the MCN was seeking to enforce IGRA. Dellinger’s letter strongly supports the conclusion that the MCN was seeking to enforce its own laws when it took possession of the Bruner allotment. The law is clearly established that federal courts lack the authority to resolve disputes over tribal law, and such disputes fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of tribal courts. Attorney’s Process & Investigation Servs., Inc. v. Sac & Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa, 609 F.3d 927, 943 (8th Cir. 2010); Wheeler v. United States Dep’t of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 811 F.2d 549, 551-52 (10th Cir. 1987). The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear matters solely concerning the interpretation of tribal law, and plaintiffs must litigate their case in tribal court to the extent that plaintiffs’ contest the enforcement of tribal gaming laws. As the parties seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this court, plaintiffs bear the burden to establish that “federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of California, 463 U.S. at 27-28. Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden, and this case should be dismissed.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.