Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

CashCall v. Morrisey (WV AG) Cert Petition — Non-Western Sky-Originated Loan (UPDATED)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the cert stage briefs:

CashCall Cert Petition

South Dakota Bankers Amicus Brief

West Virginia Cert Opp Brief

UPDATE: SCOTUS denied cert on May 5.

Seattle Law School Event on VAWA and Indian Country CORRECTED

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here (PDF):

VAWA Panel Flyer.2015

 

Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona Sues United States for Breach of Trust

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Inter-Tribal Council Of Arizona Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

1 Complaint

Federal Court Suit to Stop Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians’ Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Save the Valley LLC v. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (C.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

Native American Telecom (Crow Creek Sioux) Contract Breach Claims against Sprint Allowed to Proceed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Court (D. S.D.):

182 Sprint Motion to Dismiss

190 Native American Telecom Opposition

196 Sprint Reply

234 DCT Order

We have posted on this case before:

Federal Court Confirms Labor Union Arbitration Award against Picayune Rancheria Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Unite Here Local 19 v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (E.D. Cal.):

1 Petition

11-1 Unite Here Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

15 Chukchansi Opposition

16 Unite Here Reply

18 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Respondents maintain that the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) does not apply to them because the statute does not expressly abrogate tribal sovereignty. This Court, however, need not determine whether the statute abrogates sovereignty, as Respondents have waived their sovereign immunity and consented to be sued in federal court. See Okla.Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991) (“Suits against Indian tribes are thus barred by sovereign immunity absent a clear waiver by the tribe or congressional abrogation.”) (emphasis added). The CBA-which, again, Respondents concede they agreed to—provides:
For the sole purpose of enabling a suit to compel arbitration or to confirm an arbitration award under this Agreement or the Employer’s Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance, the Employer agrees to a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and consents to be sued in federal court, without exhausting tribal remedies.
Pet., Exh. A at 17 (emphasis added). There is no indication that Respondents entered into this unequivocal waiver involuntarily. See White v. Univ. of Cal., 765 F.3d 1010, 1025–26 (9th Cir.2014) (“A voluntary waiver by a tribe must be unequivocally expressed.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Contrary to Respondents’ suggestion, the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (2014), does not compel a different result. In fact, that opinion reconfirmed that an Indian tribe may waive its sovereign immunity: “we have time and again treated the doctrine of tribal immunity as settled law and dismissed any suit against a tribe absent congressional authorization or a waiver.” 134 S.Ct. 2030–31 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and parentheses omitted); see also id. at 2035 (“[I]f a State really wants to sue a tribe for gaming outside Indian lands, the State need only bargain for a waiver of immunity.”).

SCOTUS Denies Cert in CashCall v. Inetianbor

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order list.

We posted the cert stage briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

District court materials here.

National Native American Bar Association Study Released

Matthew L.M. Fletcher
WWW.NATIVEAMERICANBAR.ORG
For Immediate Release, April 6, 2015
Contact: Mary L. Smith (202) 236-0339

NNABA RELEASES HISTORIC RESEARCH STUDY OF
NATIVE AMERICAN ATTORNEYS

Phoenix, AZ. — Today, the National Native American Bar Association (NNABA) and NNABA Foundation released the results of the first-of-its-kind research study on Native American attorneys. This research is the only comprehensive research regarding Native American attorneys across all practice settings where each and every of the over 500 survey respondents identified as Native American.

One of the powerful findings of this study is that Native Americans often feel invisible and share an overarching perspective that their experiences are not valid or real. In addition to documenting the failure of traditional diversity and inclusion efforts to reach Native American attorneys, the study sheds light on unique challenges facing American Indians. Native Americans are clearly behind even other underrepresented groups in terms of inclusion, retention, and representation.

“This comprehensive research is not only the first – but the only – research that examines the experiences of Native American attorneys across all practice settings. It presents a stark portrait of an entire group of attorneys systematically excluded from the legal profession,” said Mary Smith, NNABA President. “It is clear that traditional diversity and inclusion programs are simply not working for Native American attorneys. NNABA hopes that this research will be used to build a more robust pipeline of Native American attorneys and to work toward the full inclusion of Native Americans in the legal profession.”

Highlights of the research include:

  • The survey captured information from 527 Native American attorneys, approximately 20% of the 2,640 Native American attorneys in the United States.
  • The most satisfied attorneys were working in the tribal sector, and the least satisfied attorneys were working for the federal/state government or law firms; however, tribal politics/cliques, overwhelming workloads, and not being able to make an impactful difference were cited as primary sources of dissatisfaction even in the context of being generally satisfied.
  • Over 40% of the attorneys overall in the study reported experiencing demeaning comments or other types of harassment based on their race, ethnicity, and/or tribal affiliation; and 33.63% reported experiencing one or more forms of discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, and/or tribal affiliation.
  • Women were more likely than men to report demeaning comments and/or harassment based on gender (38% to 3%); discrimination based on gender (35% to 4%); denial of advancement or promotional opportunities due to gender (21% to 3%); and denial of appropriate compensation due to gender (29% to 1%).
  • Over 76% of the attorneys in this study reported that more awareness and understanding of issues faced by Native Americans would have a positive impact on their careers. In comparison, only 60% of the attorneys felt that more effective implementation of diversity and inclusion policies in their workplace would have a positive impact on their careers. This is not surprising given the ways diversity and inclusion initiatives have largely ignored the issues and concerns of Native American attorneys.

For more information and to view the full report and the executive summary, go tohttp://www.nativeamericanbar.org/native-american-attorney-study/.

Founded in 1973, NNABA serves as the national association for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian attorneys, judges, law professors and law students. NNABA strives for justice and effective legal representation for all American indigenous peoples; fosters the development of Native American lawyers and judges; and addresses social, cultural and legal issues affecting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.

For more information contact 480-727-0420 or visit www.nativeamericanbar.org.

Michigan NALSA Event on Keystone XL Pipeline

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

  

Colin Kavanaugh

  

The Michigan law school community

  

   

Leah Jurss on Creative Remedies for Tribes Extending Civil Infraction Systems over Non-Indians

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Our own Leah Jurss (MSU Law ’15, MSU Law Review EIC, White Earth Ojibwe) has published “Halting the Slide Down the Sovereignty Slope: Creative Remedies for Tribes Extending Civil Infraction Systems over Non-Indians” in the Rutgers Race and The Law Review.

An excerpt:

The best option for tribes is to work towards building open communications with non-Indians residing on reservations, non-Indians visiting reservations, and state and local governments surrounding reservations. These communications can help to build trust between all parties and a base of empirical evidence showing the effectiveness of tribal civil infraction systems. It is imperative that tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians not be reduced any more than it currently is to ensure the continuing success and viability of tribal nations themselves. A tribal nation that does not have the ability to protect itself from harmful outside influences via its tribal courts has little ability to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, a priority of all sovereign nations.