Here are the briefs (that I choose to post because the others are ridiculous):
Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Brief
Alaska
D.C. Federal Court Transfers Eklutna Gaming Case to Alaska Federal Court
Here are the new materials in State of Alaska v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
Complaint here.
Complaint in Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium v. Kennedy
Alaska Federal Court Dismisses Most of Challenge to Gold Mine Project
Here are the materials so far in Village of Dot Lake v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Alaska):
11-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss
Termination-Bent Alaskans Sue NIGC Over Opinion that Trust Allotments in Alaska are Gaming-Eligible
Kirsten Carlson on Justice in Alaska
Kirsten Matoy Carlson has published āJustice Beyond the Stateā in the Alaska Law Review. PDF
Abstract:
For decades the intersectionality of extreme rurality and cultural difference has led scholars and tribal leaders to advocate for recognition of local authority as a solution to the justice gap in rural Alaska. Local control often means developing courts in and extending jurisdiction to Alaska Native villages. This Article evaluates strengthening tribal courts or justice systems through restorations of jurisdiction as a way to address access to justice issues in Alaska Native villages. It argues that restorations of jurisdiction and the development of tribal justice systems must ensure that Alaska Natives define the justice provided in their communities. Restorations of jurisdiction that require Alaska Native villages to replace their traditions and laws with adversarial processes and values threaten to undermine access to justice.
Tennessee COA Dismisses ICWA Appeal as Interlocutory, but Notes that Existing Indian Family Exception is NOT THE LAW
Here is the opinion in In re Epik W.:
The EIF excerpt:
In remanding the case, however, we would be remiss if we did not call the JuvenileĀ Court’sĀ attention to the shared agreement that both the Department and theĀ TribeĀ have in this appeal regarding the ExistingĀ IndianĀ Family Doctrine, which was the doctrinal basis upon which the JuvenileĀ CourtĀ rejected the ICWA and denied the request for transfer. Indeed, in response to theĀ Tribe’sĀ general advocacy on appeal concerning the invalidity of the ExistingĀ IndianĀ Family Doctrine,Ā the Department has specifically disclaimed the vitality of the doctrine, arguing, as we previously noted, thatĀ federalĀ regulations āforeclose relianceā on it.Ā Although we have little doubt that the parties still disagree on other issues relevant to a decision to transfer this matter to theĀ tribalĀ court, the shared agreement between theĀ TribeĀ and the Department regarding the ExistingĀ IndianĀ Family Doctrine strongly counsels in favor of the JuvenileĀ CourtĀ revisiting the transfer request (as the doctrine was its sole cited basis for denial).
There is only one public brief available, but it’s relevant:
Alaska Federal Court Holds Feds Can Acquire Land in Trust for Alaska Tribes
Here are the materials in State of Alaska v. Newland (D. Alaska):
New Student Scholarship on Trust Land Acquisitions for Alaska Tribal Nations
Alexis Studler has published āReviving Indian Country: Expanding Alaska Native Villagesā Tribal Land Bases Through Fee-to-Trust Acquisitionsā in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law.
Here is the abstract:
For the last fifty years, the possibility of fee-to-trust acquisitions in Alaska has been precarious at best. This is largely due to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA), which eschewed the traditional reservation system in favor of corporate land ownership and management. Despite its silence on trust acquisitions, ANCSA was and still is cited as the primary prohibition to trust acquisitions in Alaska. Essentially, ANCSA both reduced Indian Country in Alaska and prohibited any opportunities to create it, leaving Alaska Native Villages without the significant territorial jurisdiction afforded to Lower 48 tribes. However, recent policy changes from the Department of Interior reaffirmed the eligibility of trust acquisitions post-ANCSA and a proposed rule from the Bureau of Indian Affairs signals a favorable presumption of approval for Alaska Native fee-to-trust applications. This Note reviews the history and controversy of trust acquisitions in Alaska, and more importantly, it demonstrates the methods in which Alaska Native Villages may still acquire fee land for trust acquisitions after ANCSA.
Alaska Federal Court Affirms Alaska Native Subsistence Rights
Here are the materials in United States v. State of Alaska (D. Alaska):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.