The Guardian: “New Mexico’s tribal groups gear up to fight for their home”

Here.

Trump Administration Moves Forward on Pebble Mine in Alaska, Which is Horrible

Here.

NARF Press Release on Presidential Commission on Voter Suppression

Saw this coming.

Here:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, May 12, 2017

Contacts: Natalie Landreth, NARF Staff Attorney, (907) 276-0680; Matt Campbell, NARF Staff Attorney, (303) 447-8760

President Announces Commission to Investigate American Voters

Yesterday, the President announced the creation of the “Presidential Commission on Election Integrity,” a new body intended to investigate American voters for “improper” or “fraudulent” voting.  This is not only an unprecedented attack on the American electorate, it is also completely misleading because there is virtually no voter fraud anywhere in the United States.  Instead, the problems experienced by American voters are long lines, lack of polling places, lack of early voting opportunities, gerrymandered districts, and jurisdictions’ failure to follow voting laws such the Motor Voter bill and the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  These problems are actually increasing in American elections, in large part due to the activities of people newly appointed to the Commission.  Prominent advocates of voter suppression such as Kris Kobach sit on this Commission.

“This Commission is completely backwards; it is not the American people who need to be investigated, it is the jurisdictions using more suppressive tactics to keep citizens from voting,” said Natalie Landreth staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund and voting rights litigator. “Voter suppression is designed by those in power to keep themselves in power. They know as the electorate changes, their power wanes so these tactics are meant to ‘freeze the electorate’ in a way.”

The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) has litigated voting cases on behalf of American Indians and Alaska Natives since the 1980s, and it currently leads the Native American Voting Rights Coalition, a group of voting rights advocates who work in Indian Country across the United States.  In this capacity, NARF encounters a wide variety of problems faced by American Indian and Alaska Native voters.  These problems are many and widespread, but do not include voter fraud.

“North Dakota is a great example of how this narrative works,” said Staff Attorney Matt Campbell, who currently represents the plaintiffs in Brakebill v. Jaeger. “The state passed the strictest voter identification law in the country on the basis that they wanted to prevent voter fraud, but over the course of the case the state admitted there had never been a single case of fraud in North Dakota. It’s a myth, one designed to keep Native Americans and the elderly from voting.”

“It is ironic that this President purports to investigate election integrity since it is now known that he very likely benefitted from Russian interference in the November 2016 election,” said Landreth. “That is what needs to be investigated, not the American voters. And I want to be very clear about why the President is doing this: he is purporting to create a record that will surely form the basis for nationwide legislation to further suppress voting.”

 

Updated Standing Rock/NoDAPL Pleadings (March 21-May 11) [Update: thru May 17]

Here are updated pleadings in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):

194 DAPL Reply re Vance Resp to Ct Order

195 SRST Opp to ACOE & DAPL Mtns for Partial Sum Judg

198 Consol Reply to Motion to Amend Complaint

198 CRST Motion to Extend Time

200 SRST Reply to Motion to Amend Complaint

201 ACOE Reply in Support of Mtn Partial Summ Judg re SRST

203 DAPL Reply in Support of ACOE Cross-Mtn for Partial Summ Judgment

205 Opinion re DAPL Mtn for Protective Order

205 Order re DAPL Mtn for Protective Order

207 CRST Reply in Support of MPSJ & Opp Cross-Mtns

208 CRST Reply in Supp of MPSJ & Opp Cross-Mtns209 Joint Appendix

212 Errata-Joint Appendix

213 DAPL Reply in Support of Mtn for Partial Summary Judgment

214 ACOE Repl Supp Mtn PSJ

216 DAPL Motion to Compel

216-1 DAPL Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel

217 ACOE Answer

218 Joint Appendix

219 SRST Response to Motion to Compel

220 Intervenor Motion to Supplement the Record

221 Notice of Addition of Documents to the Record

222 Oglala Opp to Mtn to Compel

223 ACOE Resp to Mtn to Compel

224 ACOE Motion to Extend Time

225 DAPL Reply in Support of Motion to Compel

225-1 Debold Dec

226 DAPL Unopp Mtn to Intervene

226-1 Proposed Responsive Pleading

226-2 Answer

Navajo Sues Interior over FY2017 Judicial Contract

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):

Complaint

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Navajo Nation (“Nation”) seeks relief for Defendants’ violations of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 5301 et seq. (“ISDEAA”), and regulations promulgated thereunder, and for Defendants’ breach of a self-determination contract made under the ISDEAA. Under the ISDEAA and governing regulations, Defendants may not decline an Indian tribe’s renewal proposal for a self-determination contract, or contract funding, if it is substantially the same as the prior contract. The Nation submitted a renewal proposal to the Department of the Interior (“Department”) for their contract covering operations of the Navajo Nation Judicial Branch that proposed funding in the amount of $17,055,477 for calendar year (“CY”) 2017. This was the same amount that the Nation sought for CY 2016 and was essentially the same amount that the Nation had previously sought for CY 2014 and CY 2015 ($17,055,517) and which had been approved by operation of law because of Defendants’ failure to decline the Nation’sCY 2014 funding proposal within the 90-day review period established by law. Nonetheless, Defendants partially declined the Nation’s renewal proposal for all funding in excess of $1,429,177.00 for CY 2017. Because Defendants’ action violates the ISDEAA and applicable regulations, the Nation is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

Federal Court Dismisses Nooksack v. Zinke; Plaintiff Lacks Standing as “Nooksack Tribe”

Here are the materials in Nooksack Indian Tribe v. Zinke (W.D. Wash.):

19 – Nooksack Tribe’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

26 – Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion and Cross-Motion to Dismiss

29 – Nooksack Tribe’s Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

36 – Nooksack Tribe’s Response in Opposition to Federal Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment

39 – Secretary’s Reply re Motion to Dismiss

43 – Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

44 – Judgment

Federal Court Dismisses FTCA Claim Arising from Hot Oil Burn at Indian School

Here are the materials in Lightning Fire v. United States (D.S.D.):

20 Motion to Dismiss

28 Response

32 Reply

34 DCT Order

First Guilty Plea in Winnebago Tribal Council Embezzlement Indictments

Here are the materials so far in United States v. Blackhawk (D. Neb.):

1 Indictments

129 Payer Plea Agreement

TruthOut: “Trump’s Remark on Andrew Jackson Was a Dog Whistle for White Nationalists”

Here.

Seminole Tribe Prevails in Tribal Court Exhaustion Matter

Here are the materials in Asker v. Seminole Tribe of Florida (S.D. Fla.):

Askar Seminole [DE 42] Def. Seminole Ct. Resp. in Opp. to M. to Vacate

Defendant’s, the Seminole Tribe of Florida Trial Court, Motion to Dismiss

Defendant’s, The Seminole Tribe of Florida Trial Court, Response in Opposition

Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice

Order on Motion to Vacate