Here are the materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County (C.D. Cal.):
149-1 Desert Water Agency Motion
Prior posts here.
Here are the materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County (C.D. Cal.):
149-1 Desert Water Agency Motion
Prior posts here.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Crooked Arm.
Here is the opinion in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah).
Briefs here.
Here:
Oral argument video here.
Prior CA9 opinion materials here.
Here are the issues in the case, according to the tribe: Continue reading
Here:



Summary:
All four federal agencies that investigate or prosecute human trafficking in Indian country—the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO)—are required to record in their case management systems whether a human trafficking offense was involved in the case. With the exception of ICE, these agencies are also required to record in their case management systems whether the crime took place in Indian country. ICE officials explained that the agency does not record this information because, unlike BIA and the FBI, ICE is not generally involved in criminal investigations in Indian country. Typically, ICE would only conduct an investigation in Indian country if specifically invited by a tribe to do so. Further, with the exception of BIA, these agencies do not require their agents or attorneys to collect or record Native American status of victims in their cases due to concerns about victim privacy and lack of relevance of the victim’s race to the substance of the investigation or prosecution.
The Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Homeland Security (DHS) administered at least 50 grant programs from fiscal years 2013 through 2016 that could help address Native American human trafficking. For example, 21 of these grant programs, which were administered by DOJ and HHS, could be used to provide services to Native American human trafficking victims. However, the total number of Native American victims who received services under these grant programs is unknown. HHS is developing a data collection tool that grantees can use to report information on human trafficking victims served, including Native American status of victims. DOJ’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) requires grantees to report Native American status of victims served, but not by type of crime. DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) do not require grantees to collect and report Native American status of victims served. However, in fiscal year 2017, OVC began providing recipients of human trafficking-specific grant programs the option to report the race or Native American status of victims served. While Native American status may not generally be a factor for determining whether a victim can receive services, it may be a factor for determining how best to assist this particular demographic. According to the 2013-2017 Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States, expanding human trafficking data collection and research efforts for Native Americans and other vulnerable populations is an area for improvement for the federal government. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that quality information should be used to achieve objectives based on relevant data from reliable sources. Without collecting data on the Native American status of victims served, federal agencies will not know the extent to which they are achieving government-wide strategic goals to provide and improve services to vulnerable populations, including Native American human trafficking victims.
Michelle Bryan has posted “Valuing Tribal Sacred Water within Prior Appropriation,” published in the Natural Resources Journal. Here is an excerpt from the abstract:
Much has been written in the area of waters to support fishing rights under treaty. This article does not address these rights, but rather focuses on the sacred nature of the water resource itself. While the two may be complementary, a sacred water use may also exist separate from a recognized treaty fishing right. There are other places where these values should further be reflected, such as federal lands management plans, local land development codes, and environmental assessment review. This piece, however, will focus on the notable absence of sacred value within prior appropriation. This shift is important not only for the legal protections it might afford, but just as importantly as a signal that our water laws can stretch to protect the many interests of our time.
Here:
The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 4/5/17.
U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2016-2017update.html
Petition was denied in Citizens Against Reservation Shopping v. Jewell (Land into Trust; Recognized Indian Tribe) on 4/3/17.
Read the latest Tribal Supreme Court Project update published on 4/4/17.
U.S. Federal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2017.html
United States v. Jackson (Indian Reservation Diminishment)
United States v. Washington (Treaty Right to Fish – Culverts)
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. United States (Indian Health Care Improvement Act)
Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. California (Indian Gaming Compact, Breach of)
Davilla v. Enable Midstream Partners, L.P. (Trespass – Natural Gas Pipeline)
Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Forsman (Treaty Right to Hunt; Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
Dahlstrom v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe (Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
Robinson v. Jewell (pro se action on behalf of a Tribe)
Tribal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/tribal/2016.html
Fryberg v. Tulalip Tribes Housing Department (Housing – Eviction)
C.W. v. The Tulalip Tribe (Employment)
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. Martin (Domestic Violence)
Leggins v. Fort Peck Tribes (Child Neglect)
State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.html
Cougar Den, Inc. v. Washington State Department of Licensing (Treaty Right to Travel – Fuel Transport Taxation)
People In Interest of L.L. (Indian Child Welfare Act – Notice)
U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2017.html
The Department of Interior, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, has issued proposed rules relating to consolidated federal oil & gas and federal & Indian coal valuation reform.
News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Environment & Energy section, we feature articles about possible Trump environmental policy impacts on tribes.
Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2017.html
The following articles were added:
Batman and two very large jars of mayonnaise: The looming clash of daily fantasy sports and tribal gaming.
VAWA 2013’s right to appointed counsel in tribal court proceedings—a rising tide that lifts all boats or a procedural windfall for non-Indian defendants?
Community-scale solar: Watt’s in it for Indian Country?
U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/115_uslegislation.html
Three bills were added:
S.772: A bill to amend the PROTECT Act to make Indian tribes eligible for AMBER Alert grants.
H.R.610: To distribute Federal funds for elementary and secondary education in the form of vouchers for eligible students and to repeal a certain rule relating to nutrition standards in schools.
S.780: A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to reduce the gap between Federal and State marijuana policy, and for other purposes.
S.747: Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) Reauthorization.
S.785: A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to provide for equitable allotment of land to Alaska Native veterans.
H.R.23: Gaining Responsibility on Water (GROW) Act of 2017
You must be logged in to post a comment.