Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher – Page 195

Indigenous peoples and nations have been making demands for protection and promotion of their intellectual property, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions in domestic and international fora. The power of the basic demand is one that lies in claims of moral duty and human rights. This Article argues that in order for such claims to have power, one of the necessary elements for success is that the demandeurs themselves need to provide such protection within whatever scope of sovereignty that they exercise. In the context of Native American tribes seeking protection for Native American intellectual property under federal law in the broader territory of the United States, this Article argues that a necessary condition for success may be ensuring such protection on their own tribal territory. This Article serves as an early contribution to a broader research agenda aimed at providing more data as a basis for tribal claims for protection of their traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. It presents a survey of the nature and scope of legal and formal protection that tribal legislation in the United States has provided for traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. It further surveys and analyzes the nature and scope of protection provided under federal law and assesses the gap between what tribal codes provide and what federal law provides. It then proposes a series of next steps as a research agenda.

New Scholarship on the Tohono O’odham Legal Systems

September 14, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kyle Fields has posted “Tohono O’odham Legal Systems” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

This short essay surveys the Tohono O’odham’s legal system through three periods. First, it discusses the traditional O’odham legal system, which relied on himdag (culture or way of life). Second, it reviews how the Spanish, using an inquisitorial system based on Christian religious law, altered the O’odham’s legal system. Third, it analyzes how the secular American adversarial system changed the O’odham’s legal system.

Bay Mills Objections to Modified Consent Decree in United States v. Enbridge

September 13, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

consent-decree-objections-9-13-18.pdf

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Approves Voting Rules in Arizona Intended to Make Voting Harder for People of Color

September 13, 2018September 13, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Democratic National Committee v. Reagan.

An excerpt from Chief Judge Thomas’ dissent:

“No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). Our right to vote benefits government as much as it benefits us: a representative democracy requires participation, and the people require representatives accountable to them. Arizona’s electoral scheme impedes this ideal and has the effect of disenfranchising Arizonans of African American, Hispanic, and Native American descent.

Arizona’s policy of wholly discarding—rather than partially counting—votes cast out-of-precinct has a disproportionate effect on racial and ethnic minority groups. It violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), and it unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote guaranteed by the First Amendment and incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

National Indian Law Library Bulletin (9/12/2018)

September 13, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 9/12/18.

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin (contact us if you need help finding a copy of an article)

http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2018.html

• I see you- A story from the Haudenosaunee.

• Indian Child Welfare Act annual case law update and commentary.

• August 2016-August 2017 case law on American Indians.

• CDIB: The role of the certificate of the degree of Indian blood in defining Native American legal identity.

• Tribal Exclusion Authority: Its sovereign bases with recommendations for federal support.

• Native American rights and adoption by non-Indian families: The manipulation and distortion of public opinion to overthrow ICWA.

• Racial anxieties in adoption: Reflections on adoptive couple, white parenthood, and constitutional challenges to the ICWA.

Federal Courts Bulletin

http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2018.html

Forest County Potawatomi Community v. United States (Gaming Compact – Approval)
Kialegee Tribal Town v. Zinke (Jurisdiction; Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)

United States of America v. Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe (Hunting and Fishing Rights)

Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Zinke (Lands; Gaming)

Tribal Courts Bulletin

http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/tribal/2018.html

Moon v. Hoopa Valley Tribe (Employment – Wrongful Termination)

State Courts Bulletin

http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2018.html

In re E.H. (Indian Child Welfare Act – Notice)

News Bulletin

http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html

In the Environment and Energy section, we feature an article on a law suit filed by tribes against the Keystone XL pipeline permit.

U.S. Legislation Bulletin