Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

SCOTUS GVRs Knight v. Thompson — A Native Prisoner Matter — in Light of Holt v. Hobbs

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the order.

BTW, a GVR stands for “grant vacate remand.” It usually means, as I believe it does here, that the Supreme Court has decided a matter that will affect the disposition of another matter pending before the Court at the time. Here, the Court granted cert to review Holt v. Hobbs. and decided that matter last week. Also pending was a cert petition in Knight v. Thompson involving a challenge by a Native prisoner to his warden’s order to cut his hair. the Court held the Native petition while it decided the other petition, which involved a Muslim man’s challenge to his warden’s order to shave his beard.

Now the Knight case will return to the Eleventh Circuit where the court will review the case in light of the decision in Holt.

Materials on Alleged Extortion by Ute TERO Office

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the relevant materials submitted in Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah (D. Utah):

238 Duschene Cty Counterclaim

271 Ute Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim

294 Duschene Cty Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

306 Ute Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

417 Ute Motion for Summary J

470 Duschene Cty Response to Motion for Summary J

481 DCT Order on Motion to Dismiss

The order:

At a hearing on January 10, 2013, with all parties present, this matter came before the Court on a Rule 12(b) motion filed by the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Dkt. 271, to dismiss the counterclaims filed by Duchesne County, Dkt. 239. The Court, having considered the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, rules that Count 1 of the counter-complaint is dismissed with leave to Duchesne County to file an amended pleading within 20 days; the racketeering claims under Count 2 are dismissed for being facially deficient and failing to state a cause of action; and the Court denies the motion to dismiss the remaining claims under Counts 2 through 5 of the counterclaim.

713 Duschene Cty Supplement

771 Duschene Cty Supplement

My sense is that Judge Jenkins is waiting for the Tenth Circuit to decide other matters to make a decision on the tribe’s motion for summary judgment on Duchesne County’s counterclaim. That appeal involves the tribe’s claim that the state and counties are illegally prosecuting tribal members under state law.

In the motion for summary judgment, the tribe is arguing that Article III courts have no jurisdiction, or in the alternative the county must first exhaust tribal remedies.

Tulalip Tribal Court Dismisses State Law-Based Tort Claim against Tribal Business

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Jackson v. Tulalip Tribes of Washington (Tulalip Tribal Court):

Jackson v v Tulalip

Complaint in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. United States over Uranium Mining Remediation on Pueblo of Laguna Lands

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. United States (D. N.M.):

1-1 Complaint

An excerpt:

1. Atlantic Richfield seeks a declaration of its rights and other relief to prevent the United States from imposing upon Atlantic Richfield responsibility for funding or performing any environmental reclamation or remediation work at the Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine (the “Jackpile Site” or the “Site”), because Atlantic Richfield paid $43,600,000 to the Laguna and the United States in 1986 for a comprehensive settlement and release of Atlantic Richfield’s environmental liability for the Site.

2. The Jackpile Site is located within the Pueblo of Laguna Reservation in Cibola County, New Mexico. Before, during, and after mining operations at the Site by Atlantic Richfield’s predecessor, the United States held legal title to some or all of the land within the Site. The United States currently holds legal title to some or all of the land within the Site. At all relevant times, the federal trust doctrine imposed, and continues to impose, fiduciary duties upon the United States with regard to all of the land within the Jackpile Site.

3. The United States promoted and encouraged uranium exploration and mining on the Pueblo of Laguna Reservation, including at the Jackpile Site. Beginning in the 1940s, the United States implemented a decades-long program to locate, acquire, and process uranium ore and to purchase uranium ore and uranium concentrate for military purposes. The United States’ uranium procurement program ultimately included the Jackpile Site. Until the late 1960s, the United States was the sole purchaser of all the uranium produced from domestic uranium mines, including from the Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine. During this period, the United States exercised pervasive control over the domestic uranium industry, including all aspects of uranium exploration, production, processing, and marketing.

Otoe-Missouria Tribal Lender Appeals Connecticut Dept. of Banking Fines

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Great Plains Lending LLC v. Connecticut Dept. of Banking (Conn. Super.):

Complaint

Motion for TRO

News coverage here: “Oklahoma tribe appeals $1.5 million in payday lending fines.”

News Profile: “Tribal Payday Lenders Get Comeuppance”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

From the FTC press release:

Two payday lending companies have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they violated the law by charging consumers undisclosed and inflated fees. Under the proposed settlement, AMG Services, Inc. and MNE Services, Inc. will pay $21 million – the largest FTC recovery in a payday lending case – and will waive another $285 million in charges that were assessed but not collected.

The Federal Trade Commission’s website on this matter is here.

The stipulated judgment is here.

Wisconsin Gov. Walker Refuses to Concur in Menominee Milwaukee Casino Proposal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Of note, the Wisconsin Department of Administration’s report on the proposal is here.

NARF: “The impact of Holt v. Hobbs on Native American inmates”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. An excerpt:

Holt holds that this approach is wrong.  Much like Knight, the Arkansas prison officials in Holtfeared safety and security issues and ignored the successful measures taken by the vast majority of prison systems to safely accommodate religious beards.  The Holt opinion makes clear that these successful, widespread accommodations are indeed relevant and indicate that Arkansas was not utilizing the “least restrictive means.”  Additionally, the Supreme Court emphasized that judges cannot simply defer to the opinions of prison officials as a means of practicing “unquestioning acceptance,” thereby abdicating judicial responsibility to apply RLUIPA’s very rigorous standard.  Courts must demand persuasive proof that denial of an exemption to a specific person is the least restrictive means of furthering compelling penological interests.  Like the prison officials in Holt, the officials in Knight failed to meet this standard, and the court applied an unquestioning acceptance of their opinions.  It is an error that has plagued the cases of several Native American inmates through several decades of litigation, and we believe that Holt provides the clarity necessary to remedy this persistent issue.

The Holt opinion changes a fundamental aspect of how certain prison systems deal with Native Americans and their religious practices.  For those Natives who reside in the darkest corners of U.S. penal systems, it is no longer the rule that they cannot engage in their traditional religious practices merely because their jailors say so.  Courts will demand more, just as Congress intended when it enacted RLUIPA.

NCAI/NCJA Webinar Announcement: “Improving Tribal Access to Victim Services: Lessons from National, State, and Tribal Perspectives”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Improving Tribal Access to Victim Services: Lessons from National, State, and Tribal Perspectives

January 29th, 2015

3:00-4:30 PM EST

REGISTER NOW

With high rates of crime and victimization, tribal communities suffer disproportionately from the long-lasting and multi-generational impacts of exposure to violence.   By restoring tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit acts of dating and domestic violence on tribal lands, the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) renewed the focus on domestic violence in Indian country and the needs of tribal victims. Improving Tribal Access to Victim Services: Lessons from National, State, and Tribal Perspectives will highlight practical approaches to ensuring tribal access to victims funding, compensation, and services. In addition, this webinar will highlight collaborative state, local, and tribal efforts aimed at providing a variety of services to meet the needs of tribal victims.

Presenters:

Dianne Barker Harrold, Attorney & Indian Country Consultant, Member of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Brian Hendrix, Victims of Crime Tribal Liaison for State of Oklahoma, Member of Muscogee Creek Nation
Nikki Finkbonner, Coordinator at Lummi Nation Victims of Crime Program

Moderator:

Steve Siegel, Director, Special Program Unit, Denver District Attorney and Board Member of Unified Solutions and NCJA

Registration Link: https://ncja.webex.com/ncja/k2/j.php?MTID=t5efb68c2c4ffc3a880cba980eb2dc139

NAICJA Announcement: “Developing Tribal Justice Systems in a Public Law 280 State”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Join the National American Indian Court Judges Association and the American Indian Law Center for the second in a series of four upcoming webinars on Emerging Practices in Civil Legal Assistance and Criminal Indigent Defense.  The goal of these webinars is to share four emerging practices that incorporate the philosophy, values, and characteristics of successful and effective legal assistance practices. These webinars will also share and highlight multiple programs that are currently implementing these practices.

 

Webinar 2 – “Developing Tribal Justice Systems in a Public Law 280 State” Continue reading →