This case was originally decided on May 22, 2012 as an unpublished decision. Today the court decided to publish the case.
Author: Kate E. Fort
Decision in Kroner v. Oneida Seven Generations Corp.
The collected documents from the Kroner decision:
Kroner Opening Brief
OSGC response brief
Kroner Reply Brief
Kroner Opinion
SCAO Training on ICWA Qualified Expert Witnesses
The information is here.
Purpose: This training will help child welfare professionals understand the role of the QEW and will provide practice tips on how to effectively present QEW testimony. This will include testimony on tribal history, tribal perspective on children and childhood, cultural expectations, specific tribal family history, and the unique needs of the Indian child. In addition to improving foundational knowledge on the role of the QEW, the training will also help judges to evaluate the quality of the testimony as well as further aid attorneys in conducting direct and cross examination of the QEW. The morning session will feature a presentation on the role of the QEW in ICWA cases. The afternoon session will offer hands-on exercises demonstrating QEW testimony in an ICWA case.
Target audience: Judges (state and tribal); referees; other court staff; attorneys; DHS caseworkers; other DHS child welfare personnel; and private agency caseworkers.
Memorandum from Judge in ICWA Case out of South Dakota’s Seventh Circuit
We would call this a shocking opinion in case #A12-245 for various reasons, but here is one excerpt:
First, the Tribe does not have a fundamental right to fairness under ICWA, even though the parents and children do. ICWA serves as a procedural prophylactic which permits, or compels, a state court to transfer a child custody proceeding to tribal court so that the tribe may exercise its inherent sovereignty over its tribal members. The Tribe, at its option, could invoke that that jurisdiction and have the case transferred into tribal court. However, it elected not to do so. Consequently, state law prevails in the 48-hour hearing, and Indian parents who appear before the Court are subject to those rules at that stage.
Of course, if ICWA doesn’t apply at the 48 hour hearing, it’s hard to figure out how the Tribe would even know to move to transfer the case.
This is one of those most ICWA hostile opinions we’ve read in a while–especially the parts about proceeding informally, and the endless loop the court creates in not applying ICWA in emergency hearings.
Judge Sherigan to Receive LSC Pro Bono Award
Judge Angela Sherigan, tribal judge for Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, was selected to receive the Pro Bono Award from Legal Services Corporation. The event will be held at U of M law school on Thursday, July 26 from 1:30-7:30 pm.
The nomination is here.
State Continues to Hold Cigarettes While Challenging Court Order
In re Alvarez, Unpublished Michigan COA Opinion
A strange case with not great language about the non-Indian parent and active efforts.
Quarterly Reminder of Federal Press Release Page
Just a quick reminder that all of the documents (but not media advisories) we receive from ASIA-OPA are archived here.
And for the quarter:
June, 2012
Materials on the K Road Moapa Solar Project:
Moapa River Indian Rsvn Land Ownership Map
Commercial Solar Energy Project
LaverdureAnncsOJSCrimeReductionHdBk061812PR
LaverdureExpressesCondolences4FallenFirefighter061412PR
LaverdureFirefighterPolkStatement
oneyearletsmove_blog_pr_06.08.2012
May, 2012
DOI-DOJTrblCrtTrialAdvcyTrngPgm053112PR
FinalLaverdureIssues2gamingdecisionsPR
Laverdure@2012TribalS-GConf050912PR
LaverdureHonorsOfcrs@21stICLEOMSvc050412PR
April, 2012
04-26-12 Badlands Tribal Park final
Final4-18-12(corrected)MABronnerConsult
Arctic Slope Native Assn. v. Sebelius Granted, Vacated and Remanded (GVR)
As we guessed earlier, in light of Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, the Supreme Court GVR’d Arctic Slope v. Sebelius this morning. The case returns to the Federal Circuit for further consideration.
Sebelius v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe was denied
The order list is here.
In other Supreme Court news:
No health care decision today.
U.S. v. Arizona (immigration law case) was reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Fitch Press Release on Patchak Decision
Here.
NEW YORK, Jun 19, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) — On June 18, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that David Patchak, an individual, has standing and can file suit against the government’s decision to take land into trust on behalf of a Native American tribe. The court offered no conclusions regarding the merits of Patchak’s case; it simply allows the case to proceed in the lower courts. Fitch believes this ruling has several key credit implications for the gaming sector:
–It is likely to result in increased challenges from anti-gaming interests regarding land-into-trust decisions for tribes, as it lengthens the statute of limitations on judicial review to six years from 30 days;
–Raising capital for Native American casino projects could become more difficult/expensive, as investors are likely to have heightened concern about potential challenges regarding land-into-trust decisions;
–Casino operators that face the possibility of increased competition from potential casino projects tied to land-into-trust decisions could benefit from a longer regulatory process.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.