Author: Kate E. Fort

United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation Decision

Kate Fort2 Comments

The Supreme Court released the decision in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation today.  You can access the decision here. Justice Kennedy wrote the decision finding against the tribe. He was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurrence, which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Ginsberg wrote the dissent. Justice Kagan took no part in the case.

I’m sure we’ll have more up throughout the day, but here’s the last paragraph of the opinion:

The holding here precludes the CFC from exercising jurisdiction over the Nation’s suit while the District Court case is pending. Should the Nation choose to dismiss the latter action, or upon that action’s completion, the Nation is free to file suit again in the CFC if the statute of limitations is no bar. In the meantime, and in light of the substantial overlap in operative facts between them, the two suits are “for or in respect to” the same claim under §1500, and the CFC case must be dismissed. The contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Supreme Court denies cert in Native Wholesale Supply v. Oklahoma

Kate Fort

The Native Wholesale Supply v. Oklahoma petition was denied cert today.

Last week the Court denied the Winnemucca v. Wasson petition.

The Court’s orders are available here.

No Decision Today in U.S. v. TON; Oral Arguments in Jicarilla Apache Today

Kate Fort

We’ll post a link to the transcript of the oral argument for U.S. v. Jicarilla Apache Nation when it becomes available.

And just for the fun of it, here’s a poll based on yesterday’s post speculating on the reasons for delay in the U.S. v. TON decision:

SCOTUSblog/ABA Preview of United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation

Kate Fort1 Comment

By a business law professor and an undergraduate senior from Western Carolina University.  As to be expected, I suppose, there’s virtually no Indian law in the essay.   And, under the “Significance” heading:

Although it is easy to conclude that this case is only applicable to discovery issues relating to tribal funds held in trust by the U.S. government, the case has broader implications, especially in the area of employee benefits and shareholder actions. This will be the Court’s first opportunity to address the fiduciary exception to the attorney- client privilege and it can easily have an impact beyond tribal funds.

The blog link is here.  The preview is here. Oral arguments in the case will be heard on Wednesday in the Supreme Court.

I guess Friday is the day when Indian law is everywhere.

Minnesota Supreme Court ICWA Case–In re R.S. and L.S.

Kate Fort5 Comments

The Center wrote an amici brief for this case on behalf of the Center, Leech Lake and Mille Lacs.  Our discussion of the role of the GAL is in the second half of the brief.

Amici Brief for ILPC, Leech Lake and Mille Lacs

Lower court decision in the case:

Court of Appeals Decision

 

Review of Broken Landscape in Perspectives on Politics

ilpc

Andrea Smith reviews both Frank Pommersheim’s Broken Landscape and Kevin Bruyneel’s The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of U.S. – Indigenous Relations.

Ojibwe Treaty Rights Article in American Indian Quarterly

Kate Fort

“After the Storm: Ojibwe Treaty Rights Twenty Five Years after the Voigt Decision” by Patty Loew and James Thannum was published in the American Indian Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 2 (Spring, 2011).  Here’s an excerpt/abstract:

This article examines the socioeconomic, political, and cultural fac- tors that contributed to the spearfishing crisis twenty-five years ago and the state of relations between Native and non-Native residents in the ceded territory today. It focuses on Wisconsin, where the most virulent protests occurred. Because most residents learned about the controversy through newspaper and television news accounts, the article pays special attention to media coverage of the boat landing struggles. It argues that the relative calm that exists today is attributable to increased public awareness about treaty rights and sovereignty, largely due to education efforts and better reporting by the media. It also argues that the contributions of the Ojibwe bands themselves over the past twenty-five years to maintain and improve the natural resources within the ceded territory has also had a positive effect.

BIA Tribal Court Training Program

Kate Fort

Please see the press release for more information on the newly created training program for tribal court judges and officials.

WASHINGTON – Bureau of Indian Affairs Director Michael S. Black today announced that the BIA’s Office of Justice Services (OJS) has created a training program for tribal court judges, prosecutors, clerks and administrators in an effort to improve the administration of justice in Indian Country. The program was developed in collaboration with the University of New Mexico School of Law’s Institute of Public Law (IPL) and Southwest Indian Law Clinic (SILC) and the American Indian Law Center, Inc. (AILC) in Albuquerque, N.M. The 2011 training, which is being held in four sessions over three months, started March 15 at the Bureau’s National Indian Program Training Center in Albuquerque.

NYT’s review of The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek

Kate Fort

A surprisingly insightful review from the paper of record:

Kluger’s recitation of these events can be seen as an upbeat refusal to treat a historical tragedy as irredeemable. Usually, Indians tend to disappear from histories about them — even when the blame for their suffering is placed on others. The Nisqually, as Kluger shows, have not disappeared, and “The Bitter Waters of Medicine Creek” is an eloquent account of a massacre’s legacies as well as its ­history.

Arguments for Injunction in Bay Mills Casino Case Heard Today

Kate Fort2 Comments

No ruling yet.

From Mlive:

A casino in northern Michigan is illegal and should be closed immediately, a lawyer for the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians argued in federal court in Kalamazoo today.

The Bay Mills Indian Community opened a small casino in November on land it owns in Vanderbilt in Otsego County. The tribe, which is federally recognized and operates another casino in Brimley in the Upper Peninsula, says it is allowed to open casinos on tribe-owned land.

The Little Traverse Bay Bands sued the Bay Mills tribe in December and requested a preliminary injunction that would halt operations at the Vanderbilt casino.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Maloney this morning heard arguments but made no decision on the injunction. Maloney said he would issue a ruling as soon as possible.

The Vanderbilt casino opened without going through any state or federal approval process. A lawyer for the Bay Mills tribe argued this morning that the land in Vanderbilt was purchased for the betterment of the tribe, making the property Indian land where gambling is allowed.

An attorney for the state of Michigan, which also sued the Bay Mills tribe over the Vanderbilt casino, told Maloney the state is worried about the Bay Mills tribe being allowed to open casinos anywhere it wants without government oversight.

“There is nothing to stop them from expanding,” said Louis Reinwasser, an attorney with the Michigan Attorney General’s office.

The Bay Mills tribe last year purchased property in Flint Township that could be used for a casino if it survives this legal challenge.