THE OMAHA TRIBE OF NEBRASKA & IOWA is seeking Requests for Proposals (RFP) for appointment representation of criminal defendants and/or guardian-ad-litem appointments in the Omaha Tribal Court. Applicants shall be licensed to practice law in any State or Federal jurisdiction and shall be familiar criminal and child abuse/neglect proceedings. Applicant may apply to provide criminal representation to clients charged with serious crimes on an appointment basis or to be appointed as guardian ad litem for children in abuse/neglect and civil proceedings on an appointment basis or both. RFP’s can be directed to the Omaha Tribal Human Resources Department at P.O. Box 368, Macy, Nebraska 68039 (402) 837-5391.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
News Coverage of Alaska Legislative Hearing on ILOC Report
Here. Quotes from tribal judge David Voluck:
“One of the courts I work for issues something as controversial as child support orders, for children in need,” Voluck said, a touch of sarcasm in his voice. “We’re not locking up white people, I don’t have an electric chair, I’m not doing anything that’s frightening. I’m not taxing, I’m not zoning, it has nothing to do with land and everything to do with Native children.”
“Your state is battling us tooth and nail and we are now in the Supreme Court over whether it’s kosher for me to issue a child support order for a tribal child. This, ladies and gentlemen of this committee, I posit is a grave waste of your resources.”
Northern Arapaho Tribe Response to Wind River Reservation Termination Bill
Federal Court Challenge to Oglala Sioux Tribal Government Dismissed
Here are the materials in Lee v. Cleve Her Many Horses (D.S.D.):
29 Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants
32 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants
34 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
36 Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants
Federal Court Orders Exhaustion in Heldt v. Payday Financial
Here are the updated materials in Heldt v. Payday Financial LLC (D.S.D.):
36 Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration
46 Opposition to Motion to Stay
51 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
56 Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
ORDERED that Defendants, as the parties asserting that there is tribal court jurisdiction and that there ought to be tribal court exhaustion, must file within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order a declaratory judgment action in the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court naming the Plaintiffs herein to address to that court the issue of tribal court jurisdiction and if that court concludes it has jurisdiction, and the availability of an arbitration forum as specified in the loan agreements in this case. In such a tribal court action, Plaintiffs of course may contest tribal court jurisdiction and assert their arguments as the unavailability of an arbitration forum as specified in the agreements without waiving their assertion that there is no tribal court jurisdiction. It is finally
ORDERED that the parties keep this Court advised of proceedings in the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court by filing upon the conclusion of any tribal court proceedings and/or appeals, all pleadings filed by any party and all rulings by the tribal court as an attachment to an affidavit or stipulation.
Supreme Court Declines to Review Old Section 81 Appeal
The Court declined to review Quantum Entertainment Ltd. v. Dept. of Interior. Order list here.
Lower court materials here.
Cert stage briefs:
Quantum Entertainment Cert Petition
Supreme Court Declines to Review Appeal Involving Eagle Mine
Here is today’s order list. The case is captioned Huron Mountain Club v. Army Corps of Engineers.
News coverage here. H/t How Appealing.
Lower court materials here.
Eighth Circuit Decides Tribal Court Exhaustion Appeal — Colombe v. Rosebud Sioux
D.C. Circuit Rules against Navajo Trust Breach Claims in Uranium Mining Contamination Case
New Scholarship on Tribal Membership and Race by Sarah Krakoff
Sarah Krakoff posted “Constitutional Concern, Membership, and Race” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in the Florida International Law Review.
The abstract:
American Indian Tribes in the United States have a unique legal and political status shaped by fluctuating federal policies and the over-arching history of this country’s brand of settler-colonialism. One of the several legacies of this history is that federally recognized tribes have membership rules that diverge significantly from typical state or national citizenship criteria. These rules and their history are poorly understood by judges and members of the public, leading to misunderstandings about the “racial” status of tribes and Indian people, and on occasion to incoherent and damaging decisions on a range of Indian law issues. This article, which is part of a larger project on tribes, sovereignty, and race, will discuss the history of Florida’s tribes, their road from pre-contact independent peoples to federally recognized tribes, and their contemporary membership criteria in order to shed light on the inextricably political nature of race, membership and sovereignty in the American Indian context.
You must be logged in to post a comment.