Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Oglala Sioux Moves for Summary Judgment against South Dakota Dept. of Social Services for Inadequate Training and Supervision

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the pleading in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Fleming (D.S.D.):

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DSS DEFENDANTS RE: INADEQUATE TRAINING AND SUPERVISION

PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENTS OF UNCONTESTED FACTS RE: PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DSS FOR INADEQUATE TRAINING AND SUPERVISION

Petitioner’s Brief in Lewis v. Clarke

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Brief for Petitioner

Other background materials here.

Citizens Against Reservation Shopping v. Jewell Cert Stage Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Cert Petition:

Citizens Against Reservation Shopping v. Jewell

Questions presented:

1. Whether, to have been a “recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934, a tribe must have been “recognized” at that time.
2. Whether, to have been “under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934, a tribe must have been located in Indian country – that is, on land over which the United States exercised jurisdiction to the exclusion of State jurisdiction.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE:
US Cert Opp
Cowlitz Cert Opp
Cert Reply

Nisenan Tribe of the Nevada City Rancheria v. Jewell Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ nunc pro tunc ruling depriving Petitioners of substantive procedural rights was in error?
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling on the statute of limitations was in error?

Fletcher Preview of Lewis v. Clarke

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Supreme Court case could expose Indian tribes to new legal risks” at The Conversation.

Excerpt:

One would be tempted to think this is a case about fairness, about guaranteeing a forum for non-Indians to sue tribal employees who might be cloaked in a tribe’s immunity from the suit. In my opinion, fairness to the Lewis couple, however, comes at the expense of fairness to the tribe.

Recall that the tribe does provide a forum to resolve personal injury claims against it in tribal court, but with a one year limitations period. Under that law, the Mohegan tribal court has confirmed awards against tribal police officers; indeed, the tribe likely has settled thousands of claims over the years.

I have long argued that Indian tribes should provide an adequate forum to address the negligent actions of their employees. The Mohegan tribe has done so here by establishing a tribal court and a legal process for resolving personal injury claims. In fact, Mohegan was one of the earliest tribes to start doing so, way back in the 1990s. But personal injury lawyers have complained about Mohegan law because it bars punitive damages and other doctrines that can balloon judgment awards.

***

Background materials on the case are here.

Seminole Tribe Prevails in Dispute with Florida over Banked Games

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida (N.D. Fla.):

37-seminole-msj

38-florida-msj

44-seminole-response-to-38

53-florida-response-to-37

86-seminole-immunity-brief

87-florida-immunity-brief

103-dct-order

Drama at Nooksack

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Emotions run high as woman faces eviction from Nooksack tribal land.”

National Indian Law Library Bulletin (11/9/2016)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 11/08/16.

U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2016-2017update.html
Petitions were filed in Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell (Federal Acknowledgment Process) and in Citizens Against Reservation Shopping v. Jewell (Land into Trust; Recognized Indian Tribe under Federal Jurisdiction) on 10/27/16. Petition was denied in Wolfchild v. Redwood County (Trespass and Ejectment) on 11/7/16.

U.S. Federal Trial Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/2016dct.html
United States v. State of Washington (Treaty Right to Take Shellfish)
California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Jewell (Official Tribal Government)
Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico (Tribal-State Gaming Compact – Negotiations)

State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2016state.html
In the Matter of the Adoption of T.A.W., R.B. and C.B. (Indian Child Welfare Act – Termination of Parental Rights)
Wells Fargo Bank v. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma (Arbitration)

News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Economic Development section, we feature some articles discussing the possible future of cultivation and sale of marijuana on Indian reservations.

U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2016fr.html
We feature a notice of guidelines stating principles for working with federally recognized Indian tribes of the Department of Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2016lr.html
Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians: Where do we go from here?
Tribal self-governance extended to U.S. Department of Transportation.
College of Law committed to Native Law program.
Indigenous health policy in the United States and Latin America: The Marshall trilogy and the international human rights approach.
Thinking outside the bars: Using Hawaiian traditions and culturally-based healing to eliminate racial disparities within Hawai’i’s criminal justice system.
Pipelines, Protests and General Permits.
Congress, tribal recognition, and legislative-administrative multiplicity.
From dysfunction and polarization to legislation: Native American religious freedom rights and Minnesota autopsy law.
Passage and flow considered anew: wild salmon restoration via hydro relicensing.
A proper seat at the table: affirming a broad Winters right to groundwater.
Federally reserved rights and interstate groundwater allocation.
The Winters doctrine: is it just about quantity?
Tribal reserved water rights to groundwater as recognized in settlements and litigation: status and trends.
Agua Caliente and the argument for aboriginal rights to groundwater.
Why Obergefell should not impact American Indian tribal marriage laws.

Revised: Penobscot Nation RFP for Constitution and Code Drafting

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here (PDF). The description:

This request for proposal (RFP) is to contract for legal drafting services to be provided for the Penobscot Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe, for the period of December 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017.  Services to be provided will include assisting the Penobscot Nation Constitution Committee to draft its Constitution in time to be considered for adoption at the Nation’s June 2017 General Meeting (legislative body). Following the drafting of the Constitution, drafting of a code governing the operations of the Penobscot Nation Judicial System, comprised of the trial-level Tribal Court and the Court of Appeals will be undertaken.

Nottawaseppi Huron Potawatomi Supreme Court Posting

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

TRIBAL COUNCIL SEEKS LETTERS OF INTEREST FROM PERSONS TO SERVE AS CHIEF JUSTICE ON THE NHBP TRIBAL SUPREME COURT.  The Tribal Council is soliciting letters of interest from qualified individuals interested in being appointed to serve on the NHBP Supreme Court.  The individual appointed to this position would be appointed to a six (6) year term of office expiring on December 31, 2022.  Letters of interest must be submitted no later than November 25, 2016 to be considered.  Interested applicants should send a letter of interest and statement of qualifications (or resume) to:  Jamie P. Stuck, Tribal Council Chairperson, 1485 Mno-Bmadzewen Way, Fulton, Michigan 49052.

NHBP Judicial Branch:  The NHBP Judiciary is a Constitutional Branch of Government established under Article XI of the Band’s Constitution.  The NHBP Court is a court of general jurisdiction and the Supreme Court hears appeals from the Judiciary’s Trial Court.  In addition to hearing appeals, members of the Supreme Court also work with the trial court’s Chief Judge and other court staff in the development of Court Rules and Administrative Orders.

Qualifications for Appointment:  In accordance with the NHBP Constitution, persons interested in being appointed to the Tribal Judiciary must agree to undergo an extensive background investigation and may be asked to appear before the Tribal Council to answer questions about his/her qualifications for the position.  The qualifications of prospective appointees are determined by the Tribal Council in accordance with the qualifications for office contained in Article XI of the NHBP Constitution which include the following:

  • Has attained the age of thirty (30) years;
  • Is a licensed attorney in good standing;
  • Not be an employee of NHBP or presently serving, or a candidate for, a seat on the elected Tribal Council and
  • Has never been convicted of a violent crime, felony or a crime of fraud.

 

Members of the bench are compensated for services at a competitive hourly rate.  In accordance with the NHBP Constitution, “the amount of [compensation] shall not be reduced during such person’s term of office”.  Justices are also reimbursed for reasonable expenses including travel to and from Michigan.