Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

NAISA Annual Meeting Panels and Speakers of Interest…

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

… to me anyway.

The agenda is here.

Thursday at 10 AM:

Panel 21: The Impact of American Indian Boarding School Education on Great Lakes Indigenous Foodways
Amelia Katanski, Kalamazoo College

Panel 29: Preaching to the Choir: Teaching Ojibwe Hymns to Indigenous Singers Who are not Fluent but Who Value Indigenous Identity
Janis A. Fairbanks, Michigan State University

Thursday at 2PM

Panel 39. Simon Pokagon: Cultural and Literary Legacies [P69]: Meeting Room 616B
Chair: Ray Fogelson, University of Chicago
Monuments, Memorials, and the Continued Presence of the Potawatomi in Chicago
John Low, Ohio State University, Newark
A History of the Native Book: Simon Pokagon’s Queen of the Woods
Kiara M. Vigil, Amherst College
Pokagon without Pokagon: Queen of the Woods, Marietta Walker, and Indian Temperance
Kathleen Washburn, University of New Mexico
Comment: Ray Fogelson, University of Chicago

Friday, 8 AM

Panel 68. Contesting Boundaries in the Upper Mississippi and Great Lakes, Part 2: Translating Identities in Anishinaabe Aking [P42]: Meeting Room 616B
Organizer: Cary Miller, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Chair: Bruce White, Turnstone Historical Research
Problematizing Half Breeds in the Early 19th Century Great Lakes Country
Rebecca Kugel, University of California, Riverside
Translating Culture: ABCFM textbooks in Anishinaabeg communities, 1830-1845
Cary Miller, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Context for Curriculum: The Historical Roots of Contemporary Ethnic Terminology in
Anishinaabemowin
Margaret Noodin, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Challenges and Possibilities in the Digitization of Indigenous Toronto
Heather Howard, Michigan State University

Friday, 10 AM

Panel 81: Criminal Acts: Sovereignty, Indigeneity, and The Transit of Empire
Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark, University of Victoria

Panel 88. Contemporary Quandaries of Tribal Citizenship: Cultural, Legal, and Political Concerns [R5]: Salon J, Sixth Floor
Organizer and Chair: Jill Doerfler, University of Minnesota, Duluth
Participants:
Sarah Deer, William Mitchell College of Law, Associate Judge for the Prairie Island Community; Jill Doerfler, University of Minnesota, Duluth, member Constitutional Writing Team of the White Earth nation; Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Michigan State University College of Law, Chief Justice of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians Supreme Court, Appellate Judge for the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians and the
Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians; Colette Routel, William Mitchell College of Law

Saturday, 10 AM

Panel 125. ᏣᎳᎩ ᎠᎴ ᎣᏥᏪ ᏗᎧᏁᏍᏗ Cherokee and Ojibwe Dictionary: Decolonizing the Digital Archive
Ellen Cushman, Michigan State University

 

Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Homeschool Heroes YouTube Plea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlf7PoRVTRg

Homeschool Heroes Petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/take-andrew-jackson-20-bill-and-replace-him-someone-who-was-more-committed-liberty-and-justice-all/C9DVjkt9

Sixth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Second Saginaw Chippewa Member for DV

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Pego.This one is Samuel John Pego. We posted on the earlier appeal by Waylon Pego here.

National Native News Podcast; Includes Segment on Bay Mills

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. Second story in the newscast.

Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Defamation Suit Proceeds against PR Firm

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Steele (D. Nev.):

17 Scutari & Cieslak Motion to Dismiss

20 Tribal Council Defendants Motion to Dismiss

22 GCSD Response to 17

27 GCSD Response to 20

31 Scutari & Cieslak Reply

32 Tribal Council Defendants Reply

63 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Cesspooch

64 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Tribal Council Defendants

66 DCT Order

Complaint posted here.

“Researching American Indian Tribal Law” in the Colorado Lawyer

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

David Selden of National Indian Law Library has published “Researching American Indian Tribal Law” in the Colorado Lawyer.

An excerpt:

The ability to research tribal law is becoming increasingly important as 566 sovereign Indian nations and Alaska Native villages exercise their powers of self-governance. “Tribal law” comprises the laws developed by tribes or Indian nations, which apply within their territories and to their members. It can be a difficult area of law to research because few primary and secondary resources are published and made available to the public.

Tribal Water Law and Policy Class Offered by UC Davis Extension

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. Here is the description:

As a result of tribes’ sovereign status and federally recognized water rights, they have an important place in the management and allocation of California’s water resources. While most water rights are based on state law, federal law recognizes a special type of water right commonly known as “federal reserved rights.” This right was first recognized in 1906 by the United States Supreme Court in Winters v. United States and applies to certain federal lands, including tribal reservations. Many California tribes have established reserved rights or are in the process of asserting them. This class will cover the legal foundation and policy behind Indian water rights and how these rights fit in California’s water allocation system. Students will review recent developments involving Indian water rights, including quantification through litigation and congressionally approved water rights settlement. They will also review Indian water rights issues in the Klamath, Lake Tahoe and Colorado River Basins. This unique class is a continuation of the California Water Law and Policy offered by the UC Davis Extension and would be of interest to policy executives, water and environmental officials, and tribal representatives who wish to better understand California water.

Wrongful Discharge Suit against Quechan

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Tidwell v. Quechan Indian Tribe (S.D. Cal.):

1 Tidwell Complaint

Post-Hoc Revision of Supreme Court Decisions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This has made big news in SCT watcher circles. Prof. Lazarus’ draft Harvard Law Review article (which I suppose is itself subject to later revision) highlights two Indian law decisions, one of the Seminole Nation trust cases of the 1940s and Cass County in 1998.

The excerpt on Cass County:

The errata sheets have acknowledged the mistaken omission of the fact that Justices dissented and of an entire separate opinion of a Justice. The Court has even used the errata sheet to delete part of its rationale. In Cass County v. Leech Lake Bank of Chippewa Indians, decided in 1998, the Court explained that it declined to consider a particular legal issue concerning the scope of the Indian Nonintercourse Act because “the parcels at issue here are not alienable – and therefore not taxable – under the terms of the Indian Nonintercourse Act.” In a subsequent volume of the U.S. Reports, the Court described that reason as erratum and added that “this issue is outside the question presented in the petition for certiorari.”

An on Seminole Nation:

Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 651 (1942) (amending opinion to make clear that certain legal issues were available for consideration on remand (see 316 U.S. 286 (1942))

Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog on Bay Mills

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, “Opinion details: Victory for Native American tribes . . . for now?”

An excerpt:

The Court acknowledged the “apparent anomaly” in the law:  although states can sue tribes for illegal gaming activity on Indian lands, they cannot sue them for the same activity off Indian lands.  “But,” the Court continued, “this Court does not revise legislation . . . just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.”  And – significantly – even if the state can’t sue a tribe for off-reservation illegal gaming, it still “has many other powers over tribal gaming that it does not possess (absent consent) in Indian territory.”  Most state laws will apply to Indians off reservation, for example:  Michigan “could, in the first instance, deny a license” for an off-reservation casino; if the tribe went ahead with the project anyway, it could sue tribal officials to stop the gaming activity and, if necessary, invoke its criminal laws.  Moreover, states also could seek a waiver to allow lawsuits for off-reservation gaming activity as part of its compact with the tribe regarding on-reservation gaming.