Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Call for Subject Matter Experts Participation: Training Development Assistance to Protect Indian Sacred Sites

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Call for Subject Matter Experts Participation: Training Development Assistance to Protect Indian Sacred Sites

November 2014

Federal land managing agencies hold in public trust a great diversity of landscapes and sites, including many culturally important sites held sacred by Indian tribes. Recognizing a common goal and obligation to consider the impacts of agency actions on historic properties of traditional cultural and religious importance to tribes, on December 5, 2012, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Energy, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to improve the protection of and Indian access to sacred sites through interagency coordination and collaboration.

As part of this effort, we are soliciting volunteer Subject Matter Experts from the federal government, academia, tribes and tribal NGOs to assist in the development of a training module. This training would improve knowledge among federal employees on the legal, regulatory and policy requirements of federal agencies pertaining to management of federal lands with tribal sacred sites, places and landscapes.

We plan to identify potential Subject Matter Experts in January 2015 and work creating the training will begin immediately. The completed product will be presented at the 2015 White House Tribal Nations Conference later in the year.

If you have experience working with issues or knowledge related to the identification, protection and/or management of Indian sacred sites or places and would like more information, or to be considered to serve as a volunteer Subject Matter Expert, please submit your name, contact information, and federal or state agency, tribal or professional affiliation to:

http://www.denix.osd.mil/na/TribalConsultation.cfm

(***At the above address, please click “Contact Native American Affairs” from the menu on the left)

Inquiries should be submitted no later than December 31, 2014

White Earth Nation v. Kerry — NEPA Challenge to International Pipeline

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint, filed in the District of Minnesota:

1 Complaint

Second Circuit Brief in IFP, Pro Se Employment Discrimination Complaint against Mohegan Sun Casino

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the tribe’s brief in Tremblay v. Mohegan Sun Casino:

Mohegan Brief

From the brief:

On May 20, 2014, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The full text of the decision is as follows:

ORDER granting [27] Motion to Dismiss; denying [28] Motion Not to Dismiss. Plaintiff brings this action against her former employer, the Mohegan Sun Casino, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The motion is granted. The Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, which operates the defendant Casino through the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (“MTGA”), is a federally recognized Indian tribe. “As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe *4 has waived its immunity.” Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Mfg. Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998). Neither has occurred here. The Mohegan Tribe has not waived its immunity from suit in this Court, and the statutes under which plaintiff brings this action do not abrogate the Tribe’s immunity. Title VII is expressly inapplicable to Indian tribes, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)(1), and nothing in the ADEA revokes tribal sovereign immunity from private lawsuits. Garcia v. Akwesasne Housing Authority, 268 F.3d 76, 86 (2d Cir. 2001). Thus, plaintiff cannot bring claims of employment discrimination against an Indian tribe under Title VII or the ADEA. The Mohegan Tribe has enacted legislation establishing a tribal court system as well as legislation waiving the sovereign immunity of the Tribe and the Gaming Authority for discrimination claims by employees against the MTGA, but only in the Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court. Thus, plaintiff’s only remedy is to proceed in that Court. Accordingly, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 27] is granted and plaintiff’s motion not to dismiss [ECF No. 28] is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the case. So ordered. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 05/20/2014. (Bialek, T.)

Friends of Amador County v. Jewell Cert Stage Briefs

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

FAC Cert Petition

Buena Vista Rancheria Opposition

FAC Reply

Question presented:

Whether, in an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., a putative Indian tribe may invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary’s decision to recognize it as a tribe.

Lower court materials here.

Alec L. v. McCarthy — Climate Change Cert Petition

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in support of the petition:

Alec L v McCarthy Cert Petition

Climate Scientists Amicus Brief

Law Profs Amicus Brief

Sisters of Mercy Amicus Brief

Financial Services Company Challenges Sac and Fox Nation’s Tribal Court Jurisdiction

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the complaint and tribal court materials in United Planners Financial Services of America LLP v. Sac and Fox Nation (W.D. Okla.):

Complaint

FTCA Claim Arising from Tule River Reservation Employee-Caused Accident Dismissed

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Manuel v. United States (E.D. Cal.):

11-1 US Motion to Dismiss

16 Manuel Opposition

21 US Reply

23 DCT Order

An excerpt:

In sum, Plaintiff fails to establish that the Tribe’s self-determination contracts authorized Hammond’s acts or omissions underlying Plaintiff’s negligence claim. Allender, 379 F. Supp. 2d at 1211. Defendant, however, has demonstrated that the Tribe’s self-determination contracts did not establish, fund, or contemplate Hammond’s position as Tribal community liaison. Plaintiff has also failed to allege facts showing that Hammond was carrying out any of the Tribe’s self-determination contracts. The Court therefore finds that Hammond is not an employee of the federal government under Section 314. Consequently, Defendant is not subject to liability under the FTCA for Hammond’s alleged negligence. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.