Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Intervenor Complaint in DAPL Suit

Here is the complaint in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

37-crst-complaint

final-revised-treaty-complaint-press-release-2016-09-08

Seventh Circuit Holds Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act Does Not Abrogate Tribal Immunity

Here is the opinion in Meyers v. Oneida Indian Tribe of Wisconsin:

ca7-opinion

Briefs here.

Yankton Sioux Tribe Sues US Army Corps over DAPL

Here is the complaint in Yankton Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

16-09-08-complaint

16-09-08-press-release-re-complaint

Colorado Law School AILP Coordinating Legal Resources for DAPL Protesters

Here:

standing-rock-ailp-flyer

NYTs: “‘I Want to Win Someday’: Tribes Make Stand Against Pipeline”

Here.

Letter Complaint to Federal DOJ over Minnesota Civil Rights Violations against Indians

Here is the letter and accompanying materials:

fb-ltr2-doj-re-ndn-civil-rights-sept-6-2016

8th-circuit-opinion-upheld-square-hook-chippewa-treaty-rights-2-10-2015

bissonette-cass-app-brief-4-26-2016

buddie-greene-v-mn-dhs-commissioner-8-28-2008-mn-s-ct

davis-v-mn-petition_for_cert

joel-roy-v-mn-petition_for_cert

notice-of-change-oral-panel-composition-8-10-2016

petition_for_cert-kevin-beaulieu-nov-25-2011

tunheim-memo-op-order-us-v-brown-et-al-11-25-13

Second Commentary on TNToT: Chapter 1 — “Turning Indian History against Indians”

This is the second full commentary on “The New Trail of Tears” (TNToT), written by Naomi Schaefer Riley (NSR or the author). The first commentary, “Framed by a Friend,” is here. The announcement post is here.

Chapter 1 is a story about modern tribal economies, using the Crow Nation and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as examples of failed tribes. But it also a story of the history of American Indian law and policy from the allotment era to the reorganization era, loosely the mid-19th century to 1934 or so. Students of American Indian history will see a lot of familiarity to the recitations of history in TNToT, but don’t be fooled: the conclusions drawn by NSR are geared toward the termination of the federal-tribal trust relationship and the confiscation and dispersal of tribal and Indian property rights.

 

TNToT’s Attack on the Crow Nation

TNToT’s description of the Apsaalooke Nation (and Northern Cheyenne, too) is truly unpleasant reading. In TNToT, the Crow Reservation is full of broken down cars and trucks, broken windows, children’s toys, lawn chairs, trash, and stray dogs. [at 6] The Indians there have a “dark sense of humor”; “They’ve seen it all before, and they don’t expect anything to get better.” [at 7] There’s “too little law enforcement.” [at 7]

TNToT alleges that the Crow Nation government is corrupt and/or incompetent. This is a frequent allegation by NSR about all tribal governments, usually comes from a disgruntled tribal or community member, and usually supported by no facts whatsoever. Here, NSR quotes a tribal leader as saying that the Crow Nation owes $3 million to HUD, and cannot construct new housing until HUD is repaid. This sounds weird. The tribe and HUD are in a protracted legal battle. Is that dispute the source of the statement? We sure don’t know from reading TNToT. All we get from NSR is implied corruption or incompetence. BTW, in FY 2016, HUD allocated $2.7 million to the tribe.

TNToT’s Attack on the Northern Cheyenne Tribe

NSR’s main source on the Crow and Northern Cheyenne reservations is Ivan Small, the director of the St. Labre Indian School (though NSR doesn’t reveal that tidbit until chapter 4, when she praises Mr. Small and the school without referencing the controversial $11 million payment the school made to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe after being sued for “exploitation“). Small is quoted as criticizing Crow reservation residents as not respecting the maxim, “A man’s home is his castle.” [at 6]  He’s the first of several Indian people in the book NSR quotes as being angry at other Indians for a wide variety of character flaws. These informants usually are accusing Indians of flaws based on their status as Indian people — in other words, on their race. NSR brilliantly (and cynically) only quotes Indians to make these race-based commentaries about Indians; to quote non-Indians for the same propositions would be to quote racists. These Indians are usually described as slowly shaking their heads or muttering in frustration throughout TNToT (they must have very sore necks). Small is angry, but “mostly tired,” [at 6] and “past the point of anger.” [at 7]

NSR notes that there is a small casino there, asserting: “These gamblers are effectively taking money given to them by the tribal government for food or housing and giving it back to the tribe through its slot machines.” [at 6] It is my understanding that small casinos in small markets don’t make much dough. In my experience at Hoopa and at Grand Traverse Band (the Leelanau Sands casino), casinos might remain open to maintain some semblance of a job market at that location. Maybe the tribe makes little or no money from that casino, but it doesn’t lose money, and tribal employees are employed. And that can have important benefits — tribal members can establish an employment record at that casino, for one. Also, NSR’s reference to food or housing money “given” to tribal members is not supported by evidence. This kind of talk is just dog whistle politics.

Again, I’d love to hear more about the Crow and Northern Cheyenne reservations in light of NSR’s characterizations. Comments are welcome, or you can email me.

Continue reading

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe’s Suit over BIE Reorganization May Proceed

Here are the materials in Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. Jewell (D.S.D.):

15-us-motion-to-dismiss

21-response

30-us-reply

31-dct-order-denying-motion-to-dismiss-counts-i-iii

We posted the complaint herehere.

Federal Court Rules in Favor of North Fork Rancheria in Gaming Conflict

Here are the materials in Stand Up for California v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):

106-1-sufc-motion-for-summary-j

108-1-picayune-rancheria-motion-for-summary-j

111-1-north-fork-rancheria-motion-for-summary-j

112-1-us-motion-for-summary-j

115-sufc-reply

116-picayune-reply

121-north-fork-rancheria-reply

122-us-reply

169-dct-order

Prior posts here, here, here, here, and here.

Connecticut Superior Court (again) Acknowledges Tribal Immunity in Great Plains Lending v. State Dept. of Banking

Here are the materials:

commissioners-proposed-order

great-plains-motion

objection

greatplainsorderaug31

By of background, in November 2015, the Connecticut Superior Court issued a decision in the Otoe-Missouria Tribe’s favor, remanding a prior state agency decision which purported to subject the Tribe’s lending entities and Chairman Shotton to civil and injunctive damages.  Following this ruling, the Connecticut Department of Banking attempted to run afoul of the Court’s prior decision and potentially subject the Tribe to participating in its administrative proceedings through discovery and possible depositions.

On August 31, 2016, the Connecticut Superior Court rejected this attempt and issued another ruling the Tribe’s favor and reaffirming its decision from November 2016 and granting the Tribe’s most recent challenge by issuing another strong decision in its favor.  In doing so, the Court explicitly stated that the Tribe’s rights were “substantially prejudiced” as a result of the Department’s actions.