Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Public Land & Resources Law Review 2016 Volume Available (Indian Country Issue)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here (PRESS RELEASE):

Table of Contents

PDF Table of Contents

Editor’s Note

PDF Letter from Editor In Chief

Articles

PDF What Should Tribes Expect from Federal Regulations? The Bureau of Land Management’s Fracking Rule and the Problems with Treating Indian and Federal Lands Identically
Monte Mills

PDF Passage and Flow Considered Anew: Wild Salmon Restoration Via Hydro Relicensing

Paul Stanton Kibel

PDF Protecting Traditional Water Resources: Legal Options for Preserving Tribal Non-Consumptive Water Use

Julia Guarino

PDF “Salmon is Culture, and Culture is Salmon”: Reexamining the Implied Right to Habitat Protection as a Tool for Cultural and Ecological Preservation

Wesley J. Furlong

PDF A Sacred Responsibility: Governing the Use of Water and Related Resources in the International Columbia Basin Through the Prism of Tribes and First Nations

Matthew J. McKinney, Richard Kyle Paisley, and Molly Smith Stenovec

 

Shane Plumer on Turning Gaming Dollars Into Non-Gaming Revenue

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Shane Plumer has published “Turning Gaming Dollars Into Non-Gaming Revenue: Hedging For The Seventh Generation” in the Journal of Law and Inequality’s Sua Sponte.

Here is the abstract:

There are four levels of diversification that tribes engage in: level one consists of amenities to gaming facilities; level two consists of tourist-reliant non-gaming businesses; level three involves on-reservation businesses that export products off the reservation; and the most sophisticated level involves acquiring off-reservation businesses in order to access more diverse markets. Historically, tribal economic development has been hindered by lack of access to capital markets, limitations placed on federal funding, federal Indian policy that requires creation of jobs on the reservation, information asymmetry and conservative investment strategies that are holdovers from how federal agencies invested tribal funds. This article provides a roadmap for cutting-edge tribal economic development that focuses on off-reservation investment by mobilizing investment banks and private equity in order to diversify tribal investment portfolios.

Update in Galanda v. Nooksack Tribal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

In re Gabriel Galanda v Nooksack Tribal Court Third Declaration of Gabriel S Galanda in Support of Appellate Writ Petitions

In re Gabriel Galanda v Nooksack Tribal Court Response re Order to Show Cause and Request for Writ of Prohibition

In re Gabriel Galanda v Nooksack Tribal Court Response of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and the Nooksacck Tribal Court Clerk to the Order of the Court of Appeals

Galanda Response to Nooksack Notice of Banishment

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Written Statement in Response to Notice of Hearing Re- Banishment of Gabriel S. Galanda Pursuant to Resolution No. 16-28

SCOTUS Denies Cert in La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. Interior

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

Cert stage briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

National Indian Law Library Bulletin (6/2/2016)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 6/2/16.

U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2015-2016update.html
Petition was denied on 5/31/16 in Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri (Indian Lands – Restricted Fee Status)

Courts of Appeals Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/cta/2016cta.html
Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. Department of Interior (Intragovernmental Dispute – Jurisdiction)

U.S. Federal Trial Courts
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/2016dct.html
State of Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (Restoration Act – Gaming Activities)
Banks v. Cashcall, Inc. (Loan Agreement – Arbitration)
Johnson W. Greybuffalo v. Jon Litscher, Kelli Willard West, Gary Boughton, Samuel Appau (Prisoner Rights – Sweat Lodge)
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Dept. of Justice (Farm Bill – Industrial Hemp Cultivation)
No Casino in Plymouth v. Jewell (Gaming – Land int o Trust)
Wyoming v. United States Department of the Interior (Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing on Indian Lands)

News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Economic Development section, we include two articles relating to labor and employment on the reservation.

U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/114_uslegislation.html
We added three new bills:
S.3004: A bill to make technical corrections to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes.
S.3013: A bill to authorize and implement the water rights compact among the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation, the State of Montana, and the United States, and for o ther purposes.
S.3014: A bill to improve the management of Indian forest land, and for other purposes.

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2016lr.html
Three articles were added:
Conflict between intellectual property rights and human rights: a case study on intangible cultural heritage.
American Indian children and U.S. policy.
A wind watcher’s tale: Skinned alive.

U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2016fr.html
We feature a notice of the Department of Defense about listening sessions to be held regarding requests to exhume and repatriate Native American burials from Carlisle Indian Industrial School cemetery.

Federal Court Lists Injunction on Witchita Construction Project

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Caddo Nation of Oklahoma v. Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (W.D. Okla.):

4 Caddo Brief

22 Joint Status Report

27 DCT Order

Second Circuit Decides Cayuga Nation v. Tanner

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs‐Appellants, the Cayuga Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and individual officers, employees, and representatives of the Cayuga Nation, filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge) against the Village of Union Springs, the Board of Trustees of the Village, and individual Village officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs contend that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701‐2721, preempts the defendants’ efforts to enforce a local anti‐gambling ordinance against a gaming facility located on land owned by Cayuga Nation.

The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because it could not determine, in light of an ongoing leadership dispute within Cayuga Nation, whether the lawsuit was authorized as a matter of tribal law. Following a motion for reconsideration, the district court additionally held that the individual plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue in their own right.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court had jurisdiction because the Bureau of Indian Affairs had recognized Clint Halftown, who initiated this suit, as the Cayuga Nation’s “federal representative,” thereby relieving the court of the need to resolve questions of tribal law, and because the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the anti‐gaming ordinance. We agree and therefore VACATE the district court’s order dismissing the complaint and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Briefs here.

Eight Circuit Decides Wolfchild Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Wolfchild v. Redwood County.

An excerpt:

Appellants-plaintiffs filed this purported class action claiming the right to title and possession of twelve square miles of land in southern Minnesota (“twelve square miles”). Specifically, Appellants allege they are lineal descendants of the Mdewakanton band of the Sioux tribe who were loyal to the United States during the 1862 uprising (“loyal Mdewakanton”). Appellants claim the Secretary of the Interior set apart the twelve square miles for the loyal Mdewakanton and their descendants and, thereby, the loyal Mdewakanton have the exclusive right to title, use, and possession of the twelve square miles. Appellees physically possess or claim a property interest in the twelve square miles. The issues underlying this case are complex, requiring interpretation of over 150-year-old statutes, regulations, and legislative history, understanding of past mistreatment of Indian tribes by the United States, and a complicated area of the law. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s grant of Appellees’ motions to dismiss. But we conclude the district court abused its discretion when imposing sanctions and vacate the district court’s sanctions order. We, further, hold issues relating to the appellate-cost bond are moot. But we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of assessing whether the municipal government Appellees (“Municipal Appellees”) are entitled to costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

Briefs here.