Federal Magistrate Recommends Granting ICRA Habeas Petition of Kewa Pueblo Prisoner [Garcia]

Here are the materials in Garcia v. Geisen (D.N.M.):

1 Habeas Petition

15 Motion for Release

27 Tribe Brief

36 Magistrate Report

ILADA Blog [McGill Law]: Seasonal Thematic Contributions by Indigenous Legal Scholars

Here:

Season 1:  Law Through Language (2018)

Our first season focuses on language as law: within the context of language revitalization, how do Indigenous laws pronounce themselves through language? How can Indigenous laws be strengthened, given the impact of colonialism on Indigenous languages? And can the changes required to revitalize—funds, experts, and the privileging of resources—create additional inequities? This season seeks to answer these questions among others.

This season aims first and foremost to address the crucial relationship between language and law: in particular, the role Indigenous languages play in articulating Indigenous laws. Writing about the Navajo people, Anishinaabe scholar Matthew Fletcher emphasizes, “for many tribal communities, the law is encoded right into the language – and the stories generated from the language.”1 Because most Indigenous communities historically expressed (and continually express) their customs and laws orally, this statement applies to Indigenous groups broadly.2 This season features contributors who explore expressions of law and answer questions about how language deepens and complicates protocols, interpretations and worldviews.

We recognize inherent challenges in this exercise: communities experience “law” in different forms and may not identify practices and behaviours as law in the same way that they are identified in Western legal normativity. What one group claims as “law” may be something entirely different to another; and not everything is translatable into English or French—nor should it be. As John Borrows stated, “context should not be stripped from the practice of Indigenous law.”3 Often, that context is language. Our contributors this season help to tease out how Indigenous languages limit and liberate, stymie and enable, and generally complicate the articulation of Indigenous law.

 

The State of Canada’s Indigenous Languages by Katsi’tsakwas Ellen Gabriel

Indonaakonigewininaan – Toward an Anishinaabe Common Law by Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Language and Anishinaabe Consultation Law by John Borrows


1 Matthew Fletcher, “Rethinking Customary Law in Tribal Court Jurisprudence” (2007) 13 Mich J Race & L 57 at 21.

2 Ibid at 41, “Indian cultures (often) were and are oral cultures.”

3 Borrows, John, “Foreword: Indigenous Law, Lands, and Literature,” (2016) 33 Windsor YB Access to Just v at ix.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Casino Pauma Effort to Avoid NLRB Jurisdiction

Here is the opinion in Casino Pauma v. NLRB. From the court’s syllabus:

The panel granted the National Labor Relations Board’s petition for enforcement of its order; denied Casino Pauma’s petition for review; and upheld the Board’s conclusions that it may apply the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) to the relationship between employees working in commercial gaming establishments on tribal lands and the tribal governments that own and manage the establishments, and that Casino Pauma committed unfair labor practices in violation of the NLRA by trying to stop union literature distribution.

Briefs here.

News Profile of Native Women Running for Office in 2018

From Elle, here is “A Historic Number of Native American Women Are Running for Office: ‘We’re Helping to Clear a Path.'”

Eighth Circuit Decides Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate v. U.S. Corps of Engineers

Here is the opinion. The court’s syllabus:

Action challenging the issuance of Clean Water Act permits allowing a farm owner to dredge and fill portions of Enemy Swim Lake in furtherance of the owner’s activities in building a road over an inlet of the lake; a 2010 letter from the Corps was not a final agency action for purposes of the permit and exemptions determinations as the letter did not affect the legal rights of the farm owner, the Tribe or the Corps; Tribe’s recapture claim under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1344(f)(2) was a nonjusticiable enforcement action; Tribe’s claims arising from the Corps’s permit and exemption determinations made from 1998 to 2003 were barred by the statute of limitations and the Tribe was not eligible for equitable tolling because it had not diligently pursued its rights; dismissal of the Tribe’s arbitrary-and-capricious challenge to the Corps’s 2009 permit decision rejected as the Corps did not violate its own regulations in issuing the 2009 nationwide-permit determination; the district court did not make a final decision with respect to the lawfulness of the Corps’s regulations enacted pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, and the court lacked jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the regulations.

Briefs.

 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Sues FCC over Infrastructure

Here is the complaint in Crow Creek Tribe of South Dakota v. FCC (D.S.D.):

1 Complaint

Federal Court Dismisses U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 17-02 [Muckleshoot Request for U&A Determination in Puget Sound Saltwater]

Here are the materials in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes (W.D. Wash.):

25 Motion to Dismiss

27 Suquamish Motion to Dismiss

31 Muckleshoot Response

37 Reply

39 Suquamish Reply

40 DCT Order

 

Ruth Hopkins: “Native Tribes Could Lose Federal Recognition of Tribal Sovereignty Under Trump”

From Teen Vogue, here.

Federal Court Rejects Diné CARE Challenge to Fracking Near Chaco Canyon

Here are the materials in Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Zinke (D.N.M.):

112 dine care opening brief

113 us response

117 reply

132 dct order