Here are the materials in Klickitat County v. Department of the Interior (E.D. Wash.):
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
“Why There’s a Media Blackout on the Native American Oil Pipeline Blockade”
Here.
South Dakota SCT Enforces Rosebud Tribal Court Judgment Against Estate of Former Elected Official
Here is the opinion in Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Estate of Colombe.
An excerpt:
An estate appealed from a circuit court’s decision to grant comity to a Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court order. The order pierced a business’s corporate veil and held decedent personally liable for a judgment in favor of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. We affirm.
Briefs:
Navajo Nation Seeks Proposals Structuring a Corporate Entity
Here is the formal request (2016.9.2 – Ec Development_Final RFP):
The Navajo Nation Department of Justice seeks outside counsel assistance in structuring a corporate entity aimed at attracting manufacturing industries to the Navajo Nation that have been outsourced overseas by U.S. corporations over the past two decades. Legal services will consist of 1) providing advice on the best corporate structure for the company, including consideration of a Section 17 corporate form, and 2) providing advice on how to structure a Navajo industrial corporate real estate services enterprise that can develop and manage industrial parks on the Navajo Nation for the purpose of accommodating manufacturing businesses locating in the Navajo Nation.
The Navajo Nation Department of Justice will be accepting proposals for this service postmarked by 5:00 PM MT on Friday, September 9, 2016. NO LATE PROPOSALS WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Tenth Circuit Briefs in Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land Water and Rights v. United States
Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of CCTA and PACT Act Claims against Six Nations Grand River Enterprises
Here are the materials in State Of New York v. Grand River Enterprises Six Nations LTD (W.D. N.Y.):
81-1 Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Stay of Discovery
Warrant Issued by Federal Court to Recover Acoma Ceremonial Shield
Dakota Access SLAPP Suit in Iowa Rejected
Here are the materials in Dakota Access, LLC v. Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (S.D. Iowa):
National Indian Law Library Bulletin (8/31/2016)
Here:
The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 8/31/16.
U.S. Courts of Appeals Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/cta/2016cta.html
Keli’i Akina, et al. v. State of Hawaii, et al. (Elections; Native Hawaiians)
Alvarez v. Lopez (Indian Civil Rights Act – Right to a Jury Trial)
News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Health & Welfare section, we feature an article about Indian Health Service tribal management grants.
Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2016lr.html
These articles were added:
Recent developments—riverboat casinos and tribal sovereignty issues in gaming bankruptcy cases.
Thompson v. Fairfax County Department of Family Services: determining the best interests of the Indian child.
Contact the National Indian Law Library if you need help obtaining copies of articles.
U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2016fr.html
We feature a proposed rule of the Office of Personnel Management on making Federal employee health insurance accessible to employees of certain Indian tribal entities.
Parent’s Attorney Misunderstands ICWA; Arkansas COA Goes Along With It
Here is the opinion in King v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services (Ark. Ct. App.):
Maybe it’s a little thing, maybe not, but the court allowed an attorney to withdraw from representation, in part, on this representation:
The remaining adverse ruling was the denial of Hailey’s motion for a continuance, which was based on her assertion D.K. is an Indian child within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act, entitling the Kiowa Tribe to notice of the proceedings. As explained in counsel’s brief, an Indian child is defined as “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen [8] and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe[.]” (Emphasis added.) 25 U.S.C. section 1903(4). Counsel further explains D.K.’s paternal grandmother, who was an enrolled member of the Kiowa tribe, testified that D.K.’s father, her son, was not eligible for membership in the Kiowa tribe because she was the last generation to satisfy the tribal requirement of at least one-quarter blood. Thus, her son could not be a member of the tribe. She further explained that her son was not enrolled in the Cherokee tribe either, even though he was allowed to receive medical treatment through the Cherokee Nation because she is a registered Indian and is his mother. As noted by counsel, “even if the father were eligible to be enrolled as a Cherokee, that fact is not relevant because the statute requires that he actually be enrolled in order for D.K. to be considered an Indian child.” We agree. D.K. is not an Indian child under the Act; consequently, it did not apply. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for continuance because notice to an Indian tribe was not required.
Unfortunate, because the first step for parents’ counsel (and the child’s attorney most especially) should be to figure out whether an unenrolled parent is eligible for membership, get that parent enrolled, and get the tribe involved. Perhaps parent’s counsel is overworked and didn’t have the time or resources to make the effort, but did take the effort to file a notice of appeal. Deeply unfortunate, and likely endemic to the state system. The court of appeals could have done good work here and remanded to require counsel to perform diligently.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.