Presidential Proclamation on National Native American Heritage Month

Here.

Columbia Law School Indigenous Law Conference

Walter Echo-Hawk keynote address
Shawn Watts Introducing Walter
Oren Lyons leading discussion

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Tulalip Land Use Ordinances for Lack of Ripeness

Here are the materials in Mitchell v. Tulalip Tribes of Washington (W.D. Wash.):

6 motion to dismiss

7 response

11 reply

12 dct order

Interior Delays Tribal Consulation on Proposed Revisions to 25 CFR Part 151 to 2018

Here.

California COA Affirms Tribal Official Immunity in Disenrollment Challenge at Elem Colony

Here is the opinion in Brown v. GarciaPDF

An excerpt:

This case is different. As the trial court noted, Maxwell and Pistor make clear that the general rule is not dispositive if the lawsuit will encroach upon the tribe’s sovereignty. (See Maxwell, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 1088.) Here, substantial evidence established that defendants were tribal officials at the time of the alleged defamation and that they were acting within the scope of their tribal authority when they determined that, for the reasons stated in the allegedly defamatory Order of Disenrollment, plaintiffs should be disenrolled from the Tribe pursuant to a validly enacted tribal ordinance. On this record, which we have carefully reviewed, the trial court concluded that plaintiffs sought to hold defendants liable for actions they took as tribal officials in pursuing plaintiffs’ disenrollment from the Tribe on the basis of plaintiffs’ alleged unlawful acts. The court further found that adjudicating the dispute would require the court to determine whether tribal law authorized defendants to publish the Order and disenroll plaintiffs, “which itself requires an impermissible analysis of Tribal law and constitutes a determination of a non-justiciable inter-tribal dispute.”

Supreme Court of Canada Rejects First Nation’s Religious Exercise Claims

Here is the 7-2 opinion in Ktunaxa Nation Council v. Minister of Forests:

Ktunaxa_en

An excerpt:

The Ktunaxa are a First Nation whose traditional territories include an area in British Columbia that they call Qat’muk. Qat’muk is a place of spiritual significance for them because it is home to Grizzly Bear Spirit, a principal spirit within Ktunaxa religious beliefs and cosmology. Glacier Resorts sought government approval to build a year-round ski resort in Qat’muk. The Ktunaxa were consulted and raised concerns about the impact of the project, and as a result, the resort plan was changed to add new protections for Ktunaxa interests. The Ktunaxa remained unsatisfied, but committed themselves to further consultation. Late in the process, the Ktunaxa adopted the position that accommodation was impossible because the project would drive Grizzly Bear Spirit from Qat’muk and therefore irrevocably impair their religious beliefs and practices. After efforts to continue consultation failed, the respondent Minister declared that reasonable consultation had occurred and approved the project. The Ktunaxa brought a petition for judicial review of the approval decision on the grounds that the project would violate their constitutional right to freedom of religion, and that the Minister’s decision breached the Crown’s duty of consultation and accommodation. The chambers judge dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that decision.

2017 DC Fed Bar: Indian Law BINGO

Use these to certify your participation in your continuing legal education to your licensing jurisdiction.

3C148CE3-F562-470E-A08C-184BE5A1D715F91266FA-960F-4DEB-BF73-511B8891786E1584B776-C2D0-4774-8A72-47D57A1969B3

Litigation Update on Cases Addressing the “Under Federal Jurisdiction” Requirement of the Indian Reorganization Act (Plus Other Things)

Here.

Prepared for the FBA’s DC Indian Law Conference this Friday!

National Indian Law Library Bulletin (10/26/2017)

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 10/26/17.

News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Intergovernmental section, we feature an article about the Alaska Attorney General’s opinion upholding tribal sovereignty for Alaska tribes and native villages.

U.S. Federal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2017.html
Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe (Fishing Rights – Whaling & Sealing)
Oneida Nation v. Village of Hobart, Wisconsin (Jurisdiction)
Amerind Risk Management Corporation v. Blackfeet Housing (Tribal Sovereign Immunity)

Tribal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/tribal/2017.html
Pablo v. Ak-Chin Indian Community (Same-Sex Marriage)

State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.html
Paquin v. City of St. Ignace (Employment; Elections)
In the Interest of C.A. (Indian Child Welfare Act – Application)
Becerra v. Rose (Taxation – Tobacco)

U.S. Regulatory Bulletin   
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2017.html
The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education, asks for feedback on a proposed strategic plan.

U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/115_uslegislation.html
The following bills were added:
S.1986: A bill to amend the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 to extend the jurisdiction of tribal courts to cover crimes involving sexual violence, and for other purposes.
H.R.4114: Environmental Justice Act of 2017.

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2017.html
We feature this article:
The global protection of traditional knowledge: Searching for the minimum consensus.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Nisqually Indian Tribe v. Squaxin Island Indian Tribe

Here (aka United States v. Washington subproceeding 14-2):

Nisqually Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.