Tenth Circuit Holds CDIB Copy + Tribal Authenticating Testimony Insufficient to Prove Indian Status

Here is the opinion in United States v. Harper.

Briefs:

Opening Brief 

Federal Response Brief

Reply

Statewide Victim Liaison Project Report [Michigan]

Here. PDF

Blurb:

Survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking have multiple needs for legal assistance and are faced with a complex maze of criminal and civil justice systems. The need for legal services is even more complicated for Native American victims of these crimes, who not only are victimized at higher rates than the general population, but must navigate the added complexity of overlapping local, state, federal and tribal laws.

The Division of Victim Services (DVS) was awarded VOCA funds for the Statewide Victim Services Liaison Project (SVSLP) to better identify the barriers to civil legal assistance for rural and indigenous survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and to develop a roadmap to enhance access to civil legal assistance in Michigan’s rural and tribal communities. This report provides information on the project, process, and information that was gathered, as well as recommendations for increasing access to legal assistance and services for victims/survivors in these communities.

Owen Singel-Fletcher

D.C. Federal Court Will Not Hold Feds in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Court Order in Burt Lake Federal Recognition Matter, Despite “Petulant” Tone of Government’s Response

Here is the minute order in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (D.D.C.): 

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 80 Motion to Enforce Judgment. In March of 2020, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. See Dkt. 39. It struck down the Department of Interior’s 2015 ban on tribes’ re-petitioning for federal recognition as arbitrary and capricious, and it remanded the challenged rule to the agency for further consideration. See Dkt. 40. The matter is still under consideration today. In July of 2023, when a new rule had yet to be enacted, plaintiff moved to reopen the case and asked the Court to order DOI to adopt a final rule based on what was the most recent draft at the time. See Dkt. 71. The Court denied that motion for lack of jurisdiction, but on August 21, 2023, it did order DOI to submit its finalized draft to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget – a separate agency that had to be consulted – by August 31, 2023. Min. Order (Aug. 21, 2023). DOI moved for reconsideration, and in August of 2023, the Court modified its order to require the Department of the Interior to submit either a new proposed rule or a final rule to OIRA by October 31, 2023 and to update the Court on the status of its efforts by November 1, 2023. On November 1, the government reported that OIRA deemed the proposed rule to be “a significant regulatory action” warranting 90 more days of interagency review, after which OIRA would send comments back to the Department of Interior, the Department would respond, OIRA would reconsider, and, eventually, senior leadership at the agency would finalize the rule. Dkt. 77. Almost a year later, on August 2, 2024, plaintiffs moved the Court to hold defendants in contempt and to order defendants to finalize the rule at issue in this case by November 1, 2024. Dkt. 80. According to plaintiff, “DOI is no closer to publishing a final rule than this time last year and has evaded publishing a new rule for over four years. The Court can set this deadline by either enforcing its judgment or finding DOI in contempt for its failure to comply.” Id. at 1. In its opposition to the motion, defendants informed the Court that it submitted a second proposed rule to OIRA on October 31, 2023 in compliance with this Court’s August 21, 2023 minute order, see Decl. of Oliver Whaley p. 7, Ex. 1 to Def.’s Opp. [82-1] at 2, and that the second proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2024, with public comments due by September 13, 2024. Id. p. 18. Nevertheless, defendants’ declarant avers that there is still more work to be done, including further OIRA review and approval from Department of Interior leadership. Id. p. 2122. While the petulant tone of the defendants’ submission is misplaced given the inexcusably long period of time it has taken it to get to this point, it is true that DOI is not in violation of the Court’s Order of August 21, 2023, and its recent actions are consistent with the Court’s judgment, so holding defendants in contempt would be inappropriate in light of these recent developments. Nevertheless, four years have elapsed since the Court’s judgment, and a rule has yet to be promulgated. It is therefore ORDERED that defendants must file a status report by October 11, 2024 informing the Court of further developments since their opposition was filed at the end of August. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/4/2024. (lcabj2). (Entered: 10/07/2024) [emphasis added]

Prior post here.

New Mexico State Bar Foundation 2024 Indian Law Institute — Nov. 7

Here.

Speakers:

  • The Intersection of Tribal and State Court Orders of Protection and Family Law Basics
    • Deliah Tenorio, NM Indian Affairs Department
    • Veronica Hill, Second Judicial District Court
  • Medical Malpractice in Indian Country and New Mexico 
    • Melanie Ben, Curtis & Co
  • Seeking Equality in Water Rights for Native American Sovereigns 
    • MacArthur Stant, Navajo Nation Department of Justice
    • Dwight Witherspoon, Navajo Nation Department of Justice
  • Federal Prosecution of Indians in Federal Court 
    • Professor Samuel Winder, University of New Mexico School of Law
  • Is Your Tribe Leaving Money on the Table? ISDEEA’s Section 105(l): An Underutilized Funding Stream in New Mexico
    • Donna Connolly, Rothstein Donatelli
    • Steven Heely, Rothstein Donatelli
    • Allison Athens, Rothstein Donatelli
  • Indian Law at the New Mexico Legislature 
    • Lydia Ninham
  • The Ethical Standard When Working in Indian Country
    • David Adams, Parnall & Adams

Alaska Tribal Nations and Orgs Amicus Brief in Alaska Opioids Litigation

Here is the brief in State of Alaska v. Albertson’s:

Nevada Federal Court Stays Tribal Election Challenge

Here are the materials in Holley v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Nev.):

Complaint here.

New Complaint against Feds from Tribal Attorney over Attorney Fees

Here is the complaint in Corrales v. Newland (S.D. Cal.):

Materials in the other suit mentioned in the complaint are here. And yet another suit by the same plaintiff against the State of California is here.

Eleventh Circuit Reverses Anti-Tribal Lending Decision

Here are the materials in Dunn v. Global Trust Management LLC:

Lower court materials here.

Wonder what Uncle Brownie thinks. . . .

This Saturday — American Indian Boarding Schools — the Michigan Anishinaabe Experience @ UM STAMPS Gallery

Here:

American Indian boarding schools hit the Great Lakes Anishinaabeg very hard. This panel brings together survivors willing to share their experiences, helping us to never forget.

Facilitated by Matthew Fletcher, Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law, University of Michigan; and Wenona Singel, Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center, Michigan State University.

When

Saturday, October 5, 2024
2:00 – 4:00 pm

Where

In-person Event

Stamps Gallery
201 South Division Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
Map/Directions
Hours/Access

Details

Lecture / Discussion
Open to the public
Free of charge

Registration Recommended