The County resolution is available on Melanie Benjamin’s official Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/ChiefExecutiveMelanieBenjamin/?fref=ts
The Interior Solicitor’s M opinion on the reservation boundaries is here.
The County resolution is available on Melanie Benjamin’s official Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/ChiefExecutiveMelanieBenjamin/?fref=ts
The Interior Solicitor’s M opinion on the reservation boundaries is here.
According to Larry Nesper:
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin today, June 21, in an administrative hearing, voted to indefinitely extend the Discretionary Transfer Rule permitting state court judges to transfer cases to tribal court on their own authority. It had been scheduled for review after five years. The rule has been most extensively used by the Oneida Nation which has transferred 1400 child support cases in the last several years out of county courts and into tribal court. The order will be out by the end of the term this summer.
Comments on this rule going back to 2007 are here.
Here:
Question presented:
It is well established that “Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations that exercise inherent sovereign authority. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 509, 111 S.Ct. 905, 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991); Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community,_ U.S._, 134 S.Ct. 2024, 2030, 188 L.Ed.2d 1071 (2014). “Among the core aspects of sovereignty that tribes possess – subject, again, to congressional action – is the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers …. That immunity, we have explained, is a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and selfgovernance.” Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 476 U.S. 877, 890, 106 S.Ct. 2305, 90 L.Ed.2d 881 (1986).
In Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., supra, this Court explained that the “baseline position … is tribal immunity; and [t]o abrogate [such] immunity, Congress must unequivocally express that purpose …. That rule of construction reflects an enduring principle of Indian law: Although Congress has plenary authority over tribes, courts will not lightly assume that Congress in fact intends to undermine Indian selfgovernment.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 134 S.Ct. at 2031-32.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Oklahoma (W.D. Okla.):
16. Memorandum Opinion and Order 6-21-16
We posted commentary on this matter here.
Here are the materials in Pearson v. Dept. of Licensing (W.D. Wash.):
Here is the opinion in KPMG LLP v. Kanam.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the new materials in Tohono O’odham Nation v. Ducey (D. Ariz.):
Here is the opinion in Rapada v. Nooksack Indian Tribe (Wash. Ct. App. — Div. 1).
An excerpt:
Nadene Rapada was the accounting director for the Nooksack Indian Tribe (NIT). NIT terminated Rapada for processing a mileage reimbursement request without first having the request approved as required by NIT’s written accounting policy. Rapada did not dispute that she violated NIT’s official policy. She argued that after-the-fact approval was common practice at NIT and following that practice, rather than the official policy, was a good faith error in judgment.
The Employment Security Department (ESD) initially decided that Rapada was eligible for unemployment benefits. On NIT’s appeal of this decision, the ESD commissioner reversed concluding that Rapada was discharged for misconduct that amounted to wanton disregard of the employer’s interest and was thus ineligible for unemployment benefits. Rapada appealed to the superior court which reversed the commissioner’s decision.
We also conclude the commissioner erred and affirm the superior court.
You must be logged in to post a comment.