San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Arizona Cert Petition

Here:

Questions presented:

(1) Did the Arizona Supreme Court err by determining that 40 C.F.R § 122.29(b)’s new source analysis is satisfied by merely finding a “material connection” between a newly constructed source of polluted discharge and an existing source rather than considering whether the new source operationally depends on the existing source? (2) Did the Arizona Supreme Court err by determining that new source performance standards for copper mines in 40 C.F.R. § 440.104 do not “independently apply” to Resolution’s new mine?

D.C. Federal Court Denies Injunction in California Miwok Case

Here are materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

11-1 Motion to Dismiss

13 Opposition to MTD

15 Reply ISO MTD

18-1 Motion for PI

20 Opposition to Motion for PI

24 DCT Order Denying PI

Oklahoma Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Fort Sill Apache Gaming

Here are the materials in Comanche Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (W.D. Okla.), formerly Kiowa Tribe v. Dept. of the Interior:

51 Amended Complaint

53 Comanche Motion for PI

59 Fort Sill Motion to Dismiss

60 Fort Sill Opposition to 53

63 Federal Motion to Dismiss

64 Federal Opposition to 53

66 Comanche Reply ISO 53

80 Comanche Response to 59

81 Comanche Response to 63

91 Fort Sill Reply ISO 59 — Comanche

102 Kiowa Opposition to 59

103 Kiowa Response to 63

107 Fort Reply ISO 59 — Kiowa

108 Federal Reply ISO 63

123 Fort Sill Supplemental MTD

124 Federal Supplemental MTD

126 Comanche Opposition to 123

129 Fort Sill Reply ISO 123

130 Comanche Opposition to 124

131 Federal Reply ISO 124

139 DCT Order on Motion to Dismiss

Original complaint here.

Minnesota COA Holds a Subpoena is a “Suit” for Tribal Immunity Purposes

Here is the opinion in In the Matter of the Welfare of J.A.D.:

Alaska SCT Decides Cross-Border Jurisdictional Dispute over Indian Child

Here is the opinion in O’Brien v. Delaplain:

D.C. Federal Court Narrows Cherokee Trust Victory

Here are the updated materials in Cherokee Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

111 Federal Objection to Magistrate Report

112 Cherokee Response

114 Federal Reply

130 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Kirsten Carlson on Statutes and Special [Tribal] Interests

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted “Statutes and Special Interests” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Who really decides what statutes say? Most Americans think that special interests play an outsized role in our lawmaking processes. Yet empirical studies have produced little evidence that special interests get everything, or even most of, what they ask for from Congress. This article takes an innovative new approach in tackling the difficult question of how advocates influence legislation. It presents the first, comprehensive empirical study of how advocates influence the law through amendments in the legislative process. The article analyzes an original dataset of 2137 witnesses testifying at referral hearings on 108 Indian related bills in the 97th and 106th Congresses. The analysis identifies amendments as an important yet previously undocumented way in which advocates influence legislation. It uncovers a rarely observed relationship between legislative advocates and sitting members of Congress. Comparison of advocates’ testimony on bills to amendments proposed by committee members reveals similar and even identical language, providing compelling evidence that groups persuaded legislators to introduce amendments valued by the group. The analysis also demonstrates how advocate influence at the hearing and mark up stage of the legislative process frequently shapes the law by dramatically increasing the likelihood of legislative enactment. These findings reveal an important mechanism that advocates can use to change the law. Further, they challenge prevailing narratives about power by demonstrating how underrepresented groups can leverage the legislative process in their law reform efforts.

Highly recommended!!

ICWA Webinar Series: The Indian Child Welfare Act and the Role of Tribal and State Attorneys, October 8, 2024, 2:00 – 3:45 pm EDT

National Indian Country Training Initiative Online Training Announcement

Title: ICWA Webinar Series: The Indian Child Welfare Act and the Role of Tribal and State Attorneys

Date: October 8, 2024, 2:00 – 3:45 pm EDT

 

Register Here: https://usao.webex.com/weblink/register/r07e72e3d5222b35a4d9c7b80a47fc4f7

Registration deadline: October 4, 2024

Non-DOJ applicants will receive notification of their application status by: October 7, 2024

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) provides minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and placement in foster and adoptive homes. Tribal and State attorneys play important roles in advancing the protections of ICWA.  This webinar is the fourth in a multipart series concerning the application of ICWA in State courts and the role of Tribal courts in cases involving ICWA. Kate Fort, a nationally recognized expert on ICWA will discuss the implications of ICWA in representing Tribes and States in child welfare cases. Topics will include transfer, state agreements, and many other important topics. CLE has been requested.

There is no tuition charge for this training.

If you have any questions, please contact Heather Cumper at heather.cumper@usdoj.gov or Leslie A. Hagen at leslie.hagen3@usdoj.gov.

Oklahoma State Court Assumes Jurisdiction over Suit Brought against Cherokee Citizen in Indian Country, Asserting “Concurrent” Jurisdiction

Here are materials in Paul-Lucas v. Paul (Okla. Dist. Ct. — Tulsa County):

The defendant has petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court to hear this matter: