Here:
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Alaska Civil Diversion Agreement with Anvik Tribe in Alaska
The agreement allows for law enforcement officers in Alaska to refer certain misdemeanor crimes and offenses to participating tribal courts for restorative justice sentencing. It’s the first of its kind agreement in Alaska and the Anvik tribe located in Anvik, AK became the first tribe to enter into this agreement with the State. Please let me know if you would like additional information. Thanks!
The following link is to an article in the local Fairbanks, AK newspaper regarding the Civil Diversion Agreement.
The following link is to the Civil Diversion Agreement itself on the State of Alaska’s website.
http://law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/170110-CivilDiversionAgreement.pdf
Navajo and US Bring CERCLA Actions over Uranium Mining; Consent Decree Reached
Here is Navajo Nation’s complaint in Navajo Nation v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (D. Ariz.):
Here is the U.S. complaint in United States v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (D. Ariz.):
National Indian Law Library Bulletin (1/24/2017)
Here:
The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 1/24/17.
U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2016-2017update.html
Petitions were denied on January 9, 2017 in:
Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell (Federal Acknowledgment Process – Timeliness)
Nisenan Tribe of Nevada City Rancheria v. Jewell (Nunc Pro Tune Ruling)
R.P. v. LA County Department of Children and Family Services (Indian Child Welfare Act – Placement Preferences)
City of Myton, Utah v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction) and on January 23 in:
Aguayo v. Jewell (Tribal Governance – Membership)
Petition was filed in:
Alto v. Jewell (Native American Status) on 12/19/16.
Read the latest Tribal Supreme Court Project update memo published on 1/10/17.
U.S. Federal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2017.html
Hackford v. State of Utah (Criminal Jurisdiction)
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. BNSF Railway Company (Easement Agreement)
Scudero v. Moran (Indian Civil Rights Act – Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies)
The Tulalip Tribes v. United States (Indian Commerce Clause)
Whiteagle v. United States (Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine)
New! Tribal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/tribal/2016.html
In re Crocker (Enrollment – Disenrollment)
General Council Agency v. Ho-Chunk Nation Ethics Review Bd. (Justiciability)
Daddis v. Navajo Arts and Crafts Enterprise (Commercial Law; Employment Law)
Melchert v. Oneida Tribe of Indians Wis. Div. of Land Mgmt (Jurisdiction)
Palmer v. Hrd-Benefits (Worker’s Compensation)
Barton v. Lee (Family Law; Domestic Abuse)
Rogers v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise (Civil Law; Tort Law)
Ruffo v. Craft Worldwide Holdings, LLC (Civil Law; Tort Law)
Hadley v. Navajo Nation Dept. of Public Safety, Chinle Police Department (Commercial Law; Employment Law – Harassment)
Hazard v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation (Civil Law; Tort Law – Personal Injury)
State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.html
S.S. v. Stephanie H. (Indian Child Welfare Act – Private Severance)
In the Matter of L. M. G. M. (Indian Child Welfare Act – Termination of Parental Rights)
City of Snoqualmie v. King County Executive Dow Constantine (Property Taxation)
News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Culture & Tradition section, we feature a couple of articles about court decisions relating to the Indian Child Welfare Act. We also have updates in other sections of the bulletin on the Trump executive orders on the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines.
U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2017.html
The Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, has published the updated list of Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2017.html
Here are the articles featured this week:
Free speech & disparaging trademarks.
Tribal advocates as ministers of justice: a potentially problematic concept.
Caught on the wrong side of the line: an examination of the relationship between the payday loan industry and American Indian tribal sovereignty.
Climate change: carbon market.
Renewable energy service companies for Indian Country.
The lack of trust in a trust relationship: Indian affairs and the federal government.
Online sovereignty: the law and economics of tribal electronic commerce.
“Fed” up with acidification: “trusting” the Federal Government to protect the Tulalip Tribes’ access to shellfish beds.
U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/115_uslegislation.html
Eighteen bills were added!
SCOTUS Denies Cert in Pala Band Disenrollment Challenge
Keystone XL Pipeline Revived
Here.
Colusa Indian Community Loses Motion for Reconsideration in Challenge to Enterprise Rancheria Casino Project
Here are the materials in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):
170 Motion for Reconsideration
Gun Lake Tribe Tribal Administrator Posting
NYTs on Suit against Havasupai Elementary/United States
Ninth Circuit Holds Consumer Financial Protection Act Applies to Tribes
Here is the opinion in Consumer Financial Protection Board v. Great Plains Lending.
An excerpt:
We have consistently held in our post-Stevens precedent that generally applicable laws apply to Native American tribes unless Congress expressly provides otherwise. In the Consumer Financial Protection Act, a generally applicable law, Congress did not expressly exclude tribes from the Bureau’s enforcement authority. Although the Act defines “State” to include Native American tribes, with States occupying limited co-regulatory roles, this wording falls far short of demonstrating that the Bureau plainly lacks jurisdiction to issue the investigative demands challenged in this case, or that Congress intended to exclude Native American tribes from the Act’s enforcement provisions. Neither have the Tribes offered any legislative history compelling a contrary conclusion regarding congressional intent. At this stage of the proceedings, we affirm the district court’s order enforcing the investigative demands against the Tribal Lending Entities.
And:
At this stage of the proceedings, we conclude that the district court properly held that the Bureau does not plainly lack jurisdiction to issue investigative demands to the tribal corporate entities under the Act. See id. at 1002. Although the Tribal Lending Entities make some appealing arguments, none of the arguments suffices to breach or evade the barrier to their success provided by the Coeur d’Alene revetment.
Briefs here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.