Here are new materials in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (E.D. Mich.):
295 SCIT Third Motion for Default Judgment
Most recent post here.
Here:
In June 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 in Haaland v. Brackeen, making it harder for (some) Indigenous families and communities to lose their children. The decision left one key question unanswered, however: whether protections specifically for American Indian households served as an illegitimate “racial” preference. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion for the majority argued that the petitioners lacked standing to raise this issue. Thus, the Court left the door open to continuing challenges by those who have an interest in using ICWA’s cute children and clean-cut evangelical Christian parents to try to put an end to this and all related statutes that give so-called “preferential treatment” to American Indians—including in gaming compacts, employment, federal treaties, and essentially all of Indian law. (more…)
In this Essay, as I did at the Connecticut Law Review’s Symposium, I draw on my experience representing Tribes in Haaland v. Brackeen to discuss more broadly the effective presentation of tribal arguments to the Court. I touch briefly on four main topics. First, I discuss how we collaborated with amici to ensure that the Court would have the full context as it considered the issues in Brackeen. Second, I discuss how we thought about preparing for the argument and the particular importance of understanding the practical operation of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Third, I offer a few observations on the oral argument itself, focusing on how the structure of the argument influences the substance of the argument. And fourth, I step back and discuss why this is a particularly interesting and challenging time to argue Indian law cases before the Supreme Court. (more…)
In October 2023, the Connecticut Law Review hosted the Symposium “Interrogating Haaland v. Brackeen: Family Regulation, Constitutional Power, and Tribal Resilience.” The symposium was centered on the state of federal Indian law in the wake of the Brackeen decision. This decision was a victory for Indigenous families and Native nations as it left the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) unscathed and affirmed the constitutional relationship between tribal nations and the United States. However, threats to tribal sovereignty continue as a handful of states and interest groups continue to seek ways to challenge tribal authority and federal laws that support it. (more…)
There is no nondelegation doctrine for Native nations, nor should there be one even if the Supreme Court revives the nondelegation doctrine for federal agencies and private parties. The Court has never struck down a statute on the ground that it delegated legislative power to a Native nation. Instead, it has held that Congress may recognize the sovereignty of Native nations and that their independent authority sustains statutes that rely upon Native governments to implement policy goals that they share with the United States. (more…)
In Haaland v. Brackeen, the Supreme Court returned to the foundational question of federal authority over relations between the United States and Native nations, long known as “Indian affairs.” The decision reaffirmed well-established precedent affirming broad federal authority in the area, but it also underscored ongoing disagreement, as Justices Gorsuch and Thomas offered lengthy and dueling investigations of the original understanding.
This Essay explores one aspect of that history: the original meaning of “commerce” in the Indian Commerce Clause. Nearly a decade ago, I wrote an article that sought, as its title indicated, to move “beyond the Indian Commerce Clause.” The Clause, I argued, was only one small component in how the early American political elite understood federal authority in this area. (more…)
Here are the materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
Here are materials in Osage Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
Here are the materials in UNITE HERE v. Wilton Rancheria (E.D. Cal.):
Michael C. Blumm and Adam Eno have posted “Tribal Co-Management in the Biden Administration: Affirming a Commitment to Honor Tribal Voices on Ceded Lands” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Native American Tribes transferred to the United States more than two billion acres of land over a century-and-a-half, as the federal government acquired land for white settlement. The land cessions left the Tribes with just 2.6% of the homelands. Most of the land ceded was eventually settled, but a significant portion was not and is now managed as federal public lands under supervision of a variety of federal agencies. Today, the U.S. has some 640 million acres in federal land ownership, about 28% of the total lands of the country. The Biden administration has taken significant, unprecedented steps to involve tribes in the management of their ceded lands. Implementation of the Biden initiatives may revolutionize public land management, although the process of instituting Tribal consultation and co-management is still underway. This article explains the Biden efforts at co-management, highlighting several on-the-ground initiatives. The article maintains that a proper interpretation of the land cession agreements-consistent with the judicial canons of construction for federal agreements with Tribes-would conclude that the tribal conveyances to the U.S. included an implicit promise that ceded lands that failed to achieve the settlement purpose would be managed with Tribal participation, in order to ensure the protection of important Tribal cultural, subsistence, and economic resources. Although the Biden initiatives are a welcome beginning to fulfilling this neglected promise, since they are merely implementing what should be seen as an implicit servitude demanding a Tribal voice in their unsettled, ceded lands, they should not be reversible by a subsequent administration.
Here are the new pleadings in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
Prior post here.
Update:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.