Here are the materials in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (D. Minn.):
12 Fond du Lac Motion to Dismiss
32 City Response to Motion to Dismiss
33 Find du Lac Response to Motion for PI
43 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
Complaint was posted here.
Alright, let’s try this.
In category 1, Indian nations, we’ll divide the bracket up into two, so you’ll be voting in four contests here. Four more later in the day. Let’s say you have until midnight eastern to vote.
***
#1 Alaska Native tribes
My overall number one seed, what with Congress repealing the Alaska exceptions from VAWA, Interior adopting a fee to trust rule, a big voting rights win, an important victory for tribal court jurisdiction, and another win on tribal governance matters. And perhaps the biggest is the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in Alaska v. Jewell, the subsistence hunting case. Alaska has Judge Voluck, too. The Alaska Supreme Court has been making things harder on the ICWA front however, here, here, and here, though perhaps the DOJ’s intervention in one case will make a difference, and the government’s effort to set the Alaska AG right is encouraging.
v.
# 16 Buena Vista Rancheria
The Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians made a splash in federal court this year, winning one in the Supreme Court (well, a denial of cert) and losing one in the D.C. Circuit.
# 8 Omaha Tribe
The Omaha Tribe won a huge victory in the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed Judge Richard “Hercules” Kopf’s decision rejecting Nebraska’s effort to have the tribe’s reservation declared disestablished.
v.
# 9 Kialegee Tribal Town
The tribe won a big decision in the Tenth Circuit over its dispute with Oklahoma on the Broken Arrow Casino. A beneficiary of the massive Bay Mills win in the Supreme Court.
# 4 Cayuga Indian Nation
Cayuga won a big sovereign immunity decision in the Second Circuit, another beneficiary of the Bay Mills win in the Supreme Court. It wasn’t all pretty though, as tribal leadership disputes spill out in federal and state forums.
v.
# 13 Big Lagoon Rancheria
One of the few tribes to make the list by not really winning anything in 2014; in fact, losing a biggie in the Ninth Circuit. But the court granted en banc review, and oral argument looked pretty good for tribal interests. We’ll see.
# 5 Resource tribes
Well, Interior announced that resource extraction royalties they collected reached over $1 Billion in a single year for the first time. But fracking is bad for the environment, the MHA Nation is overrun with corruption and human trafficking, and oil prices are down 33 percent. Hope they’re saving their money. Oh wait, they’re not. I guess this one is really about the MHA Nation, so let’s make that change now.
The real # 5, MHA Nation
v.
# 12 Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Perhaps the most immediate beneficiary of the Bay Mills win in the Supreme Court, which persuaded the State of Michigan to seek another route to fighting Sault Tribe’s Lansing casino proposal. But not before Sault Tribe proposed two huge off-reservation casinos. Oh yeah, they won a $74 million contract case, too. Pretty good year. Ok, that persuades me, Sault Tribe’s seeding just jumped from 12 to 2 and knocks down BMIC, who actually won a SCT case this year.
The real # 12, Oneida Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
They earned a huge cert denial in their long-running fight with the Village of Hobart. And they filed an important amicus brief in the Stockbridge-Munsee cert petition.
Sitting on my desk this morning!
Here are the new materials in Native Village of Tununak v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Services, Office of Children’s Services:
Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing
Brief for Grandmother as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae In Support of Appellant
The court’s opinion is here.
General Counsel
The Association of Village Council Presidents, a non profit organization in Bethel, AK is currently recruiting for General Counsel Attorney.
Summary: The General Counsel will act as the chief legal officer for the AVCP and will report directly to the AVCP President. This position will be accountable for managing both in-house and outside legal counsel; oversee the activities of the Tribal Justice Department; oversee the legal issues of the organization, including litigation; participate in legislative, regulatory and policy initiatives both statewide and nationally; provide advocacy representation and assistance to AVCP’s member Tribes on issues such as tribal sovereignty, self-governance, natural resource law, including subsistence rights under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; provide advice on tribal justice matters, and protection of civil right s and liberties. This position interacts frequently with the Board of Directors, advising on corporate government matters.
Contact AVCP’s Human Resources Department at 800-478-3521 for an application, to submit your resume or more information. Review our job description at www.avcp.org
Per Public Law 93-638 (Indian Self Determination & Education Assistance Act) qualified Alaskan Natives/ American Indians are given preference but candidates from all backgrounds are welcome to apply.
Here:
Questions presented:
I. Whether there is a non-textual “integrality exception” to the mandatory requirement in the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) that a substitute arbitrator “shall” be appointed by the court whenever the parties’ chosen arbitrator is unavailable for “any … reason”? 9 U.S.C. § 5.
Here is the opinion and the various briefs in In the Matter of S.B.C.:
Appellant Brief — Blackfeet Tribe
Appellee Brief — Response to Father
Appellee Brief — Response to Tribe
Appellee Brief — Response to Mother
Excerpts:
N.B. (Birth Mother) and S.B.C. (Biological Father) appeal from the order entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, terminating both parents’ rights to their minor child, S.B.C, Jr. (S.B.C), and granting the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division (Child Services) permanent legal custody with right to consent to adoption. The Birth Mother and Biological Father also challenge the District Court’s order denying transfer of jurisdiction to the Blackfeet Tribal Court. The Blackfeet Tribe (Tribe) has filed a cross-appeal likewise challenging the denial of its motion to transfer jurisdiction to the Blackfeet Tribal Court and the termination of Biological Father’s parental rights. We affirm.
And:
Lastly, the Tribe argues the District Court improperly considered the socio-economic conditions of the Tribal Court. Subsection (c) of the Guidelines prohibit the consideration of the “[s]ocio-economic conditions and the perceived adequacy” of the tribal court system in making a determination of good cause. 44 Fed.Reg. 67591. In an attempt to demonstrate that the court based its decision on the inadequacy of the Tribal Court system, the Tribe draws our attention to a number of assertions the District Court made in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The District Court remarked throughout its findings of fact and conclusions of law that the Tribe “chose to sit on its hands and delay seeking jurisdiction over [S.B.C] for tribal financial reasons.” Further, the court insinuated that the Tribe believes its children are sacred “only when it is in its best financial interests to do so.”
From the dissent:
I disagree with the majority’s analysis of the “advanced stage” guideline. The State filed its termination petition on March 6, 2013. The Tribe, having intervened early in the case, moved to transfer jurisdiction on April 10, 2013, thirty-five days later. The District Court order faulted the Tribe for seeking transfer after “all the critical court proceedings [were] completed and decisions made,” yet the District Court had not conducted a hearing nor made a decision to terminate the parents’ rights. The hearing was not held until September 10, 2013, and the order of termination was not signed until January 15, 2014, eight months after the motion to transfer was filed. This situation does not implicate the dangers the “advanced stage” rule is designed to protect against and there is no indication of manipulation by any party.
And:
Finally, I agree with the majority that the District Court’s repeated statements that the Tribe “sat on its hands” until it had a financial reason to seek jurisdiction were inappropriate. The BIA Guidelines specifically provide that a state court cannot base the “good cause” determination on “socio-economic conditions and the perceived adequacy of tribal social services or judicial system.” 44 Fed.Reg. 67,591. These statements reflect, at best, a refusal to comply with the Guidelines and, at worst, a strong bias against the Tribe and the Tribal judicial system. Such statements have no place in the District Court’s order and were highly inappropriate.
Addie Rolnick, Alex Pearl, Jean Dennison, Monica Eppinger, and Hiroshi Motomura
Here:
ORDER (MCKEE, Chief and Circuit Judge) granting motions of the National Congress of the American Indians and Ben Nighthorse Campbell to file in support of the petition for rehearing. The Clerk is directed to file the briefs on the docket as statements in support of rehearing and circulate them to the full Court. No response by Appellant is required unless the court directs, filed. [13-2446, 13-2451] (TMK)
You must be logged in to post a comment.