Here is the opinion in State v. Roy:
Minnesota COA Holds Red Lake Ojibwe Convictions Not Eligible for Interjurisdictional Jail Credit
Here is the opinion in State v. Roy:
Here is the opinion in State v. Roy:
Here:
The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 10/7/18.
U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2018-2019update.html
Petitions for certiorari were denied in:
Fort Peck Housing Authority, et al., v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al. (Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, et al., v. United States (Jurisdiction)
County of Amador, CA v. Department of the Interior, et al. (Land into Trust)
Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe, et al. (Fishing Rights)
Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin (contact us if you need help finding a copy of an article)
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2018.html
Federal Courts Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2018.html
Navajo Arts & Crafts Enterprise v. McGough (Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
Navajo Nation v. Wells Fargo & Company (Fraudulent Banking Practices)
State Courts Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2018.html
The People v. Huber (Injunctions; Public Law 280; Excise Taxes, Cigarettes)
News Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Health & Welfare section, we feature three articles relating to the Indian Child Welfare Act.
U.S. Legislation Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/115_uslegislation.html
The following bills were added:
Here is “‘We were here first’: Tribes say Line 5 pipeline tunnel ignores treaty rights.”
Here.
An excerpt:
Nicole Adams and other advocates are calling for Indian Country’s leaders and tribes to act now to protect ICWA and the sovereignty of tribes before it is too late. Adams warns, “we don’t want to look back twenty years from now and ask ourselves what were we doing when ICWA was threatened.”
Here are the materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):



Partnership for Native Children Decries Anti-ICWA Decision
Calls judge’s ruling ‘an outlier, out of step with the law and constitutional jurisprudence’
The Partnership for Native Children strongly disagrees with and is disturbed by Judge O’Connor’s decision in Brackeen v. Zinke which has stricken down the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) four decades after it was enacted. This is the first decision of its kind, and is an outlier—out of step with the law and decades of constitutional jurisprudence.
With the support and guidance of a longstanding coalition of anti-ICWA activists, the plantiffs in Brackeen want to remove ICWA’s provisions that protect against removing Native children from their parents and culture, leaving unfettered access to Native children. Not content with that outcome, they wish to undermine the U.S. Constitution and centuries of established law by eradicating tribes’ Constitutionally-protected relationship with the United States government.
Although this decision is limited in application, it serves as a roadmap for other ICWA litigation intending to overturn ICWA and we should expect future litigation seeking to undermine tribal sovereignty and federal Indian law writ large.
Emboldened by the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl decision in 2013, these anti-ICWA forces—led by the adoption industry, religious coalitions, and a conservative think tank—have spent years bringing forth suit after suit in courts throughout the country, sometimes even using identical briefs in different forums, all in the attempt to have ICWA declared unconstitutional. After losing each case, due in part to their outrageous contention that ICWA is a race-based law (it is not), they have finally found a judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas sympathetic to their arguments.
While they choose to ignore thousands of testimonials from Native families who assert that those who will be most hurt by this decisions are our most sacred and vulnerable children, the Partnership for Native Children stands with Indian Country and affirms that we will continue to fight for them. We support legal efforts to appeal this unprecedented decision. We will work tirelessly to demand the media cover these issues thoroughly and responsibly. And we will work closely with those children, families, and tribes who want their perspectives finally included in the national dialogue about the best interests of our children. Their voices have been ignored for far too long.
The Partnership for Native Children refuses to go back to those the days where tribal children were removed simply because of cultural misunderstandings, for financial gain, and due to pure prejudice. We also refuse to let extremist groups use our children as a tool to undermine the foundations of Indian law and tribal sovereignty.
The Partnership for Native Children remains unwavering in our commitment to defend the constitutionality of ICWA by all available means and will continue to work in support of tribes and Native people throughout the country to ensure that Native children, families, and tribes are protected.
Here is our press release.
U.S. District Court Decision Puts Native American Children and Families at Risk
The California Tribal Families Coalition joined others nationwide in expressing disappointment over the ruling.
In an unprecedented ruling that threatens Native American children and families, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in the Northern District of Texas declared the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) unconstitutional in an opinion in Brackeen et. al. v. Zinke, filed October 4, 2018.
While unnerving, attorneys fighting for ICWA say the decision is not applicable throughout the United States. Rather, it is limited in scope and will likely be stayed pending appeal. The decision from a U.S. District Court in Texas is not applicable in California.
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is a 40-year old remedial statute that protects Indian children, families and tribes. The original complaint was filed by adoptive parents and supported by Texas, Indiana and Louisiana, and the decision is contrary to Congressional intent, the Constitution and decades of well-established Indian law.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, leading a bipartisan coalition of Attorneys General, filed an amicus brief in the case to defend the ICWA. ICWA sets specific child welfare rules designed to ensure that cases regarding abuse, neglect and adoption involving Native American children are handled in a culturally appropriate manner.
“Those of us who were raised in Indian Country, those of us who raise our children on the reservations, those of us who know Indian families – we know that ICWA protects our children. This targeted and well-financed attack on ICWA only reminds tribes of the long and tortured history we have endured in the United States,” Robert Smith, chairman of the California Tribal Families Coalition and the Pala Band of Mission Indians.
About the California Tribal Families Coalition.
Comprised of tribes and tribal leaders from across the state, the California Tribal Families Coalition’s mission is to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of tribal children and families, which are inherent tribal governmental functions and are at the core of tribal sovereignty and tribal governance. For information, please visit https://www.caltribalfamilies.org
Contact: Delia M. Sharpe, CTFC Executive Director, 916-583-8289 ordelia.sharpe@caltribalfamilies.org


You must be logged in to post a comment.