Matthew L.M. Fletcher

National Indian Law Library Bulletin (3/17/2017)

March 18, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 3/17/17.

The Tribal Supreme Court Project has added the following information:
* The Nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States – An Indian Law Perspective
* Gorsuch: Summary of Indian Law Cases
Find at the Project website under Updates and Articles.

U.S. Federal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2017.html
Tavares v. Whitehouse (Indian Civil Rights Act – Exclusion of Members)
Round Valley Indian Tribes of California v. United States Department of Transportation (Public Transportation Project – Sacred Places)
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Runyon (Necessary Party; Fishing Rights)
Frank’s Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act – Indian Tribe)

News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Economic Development section, we feature an article about a Washington State case confirming treaty rights to travel and trade across state lines free from taxation.

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2017.html
Mediating NAGPRA: Bringing cultural consideration back to the table.
Pueblo Indian water rights: Charting the unknown.
Valuing sacred tribal waters within prior appropriation.
Religious accommodation, religious tradition, and political polarization.
Concealed carry to reduce sexual violence against American Indian women.
Key Indian child welfare resources.
The importance of measuring case outcomes in Indian Child Welfare cases.
Strengthening Indian children and families: Lessons from tribal court.
Improving outcomes in Indian Child Welfare cases: Strategies for state-tribe collaboration.
Legal challenges to ICWA: An analysis of current case law.
How the new ICWA regulations impact practice.
Understanding the 2016 Indian Child Welfare Act Regulations.
Tribal jurisdiction and the unauthorized practice of law.

U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/115_uslegislation.html
Six bills were added:
S.607: A bill to establish a business incubators program within the Department of the Interior to promote economic development in Indian reservation communities.
H.R.1581: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to add access to telecommunications and information services in Indian country and areas with high populations of Indian people to the universal service principle relating to access to such services in rural, insular, and high cost areas.
H.R.1528: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 in order to fulfill the Federal mandate to provide higher educational opportunities for Native American Indians.
S.664: A bill to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Navajo in Utah, to authorize construction of projects in connection therewith, and for other purposes.
H.R.1491: To reaffirm the action of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for the benefit of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians, and for other purposes.
H.R.1532: To reaffirm that certain land has been taken into trust for the benefit of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and for other purposes.

On the Minnesota SCT Rule 10 Proposed Revisions on Recognizing Tribal Court Orders and Judgments

March 17, 2017March 27, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Link: Proposed Rule 10

The Minnesota Tribal Court State Court forum is petitioning the Minnesota Supreme Court for a new and improved rule on the recognition of tribal court judgments in state courts, known as Rule 10 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice. The existing rule was adopted in 2003, and it fell far short of what advocates sought at the time. At the time, Professor Washburn was critical of the outcome as not being sufficiently respectful of tribal court judgments. In this article, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2935279, Washburn and Chloe Thompson explained that the rule was far less respectful than Arizona’s equivalent rule and speculated as to why Minnesota’s rule would be less respectful than Arizona’s. Washburn characterized Rule 10 as providing wide discretion and little guidance to Minnesota District Courts. According to a letter submitted on the rule, Professor Washburn finds the new proposed Rule 10 to be much improved and believes that it addresses most of the concerns about the previous rule. He urges the Minnesota Supreme Court to adopt the improved rule.
The comment period closes today. The next step is consideration of the petition by the Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committee on General Rules of Practice. A public hearing on the petition will be held by the advisory committee on March 31, 2017 at the Minnesota Judicial Center.