Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

New Materials in Nooksack Disenrollment/Election/Disbarment Disputes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are filings in a new case captioned Tageant v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Tageant v Kelly Pro Se Complaint

Tageant v Kelly Pro Se Declaration of Carmen Tageant in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injuction

Tageant v Kelly Pro Se Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Judgment

Here are new materials in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):

Belmont v Kelly Amended Notice of Appeal

Belmont v Kelly Defendant-Appellants’ Motion for Stay

Belmont v Kelly Order Dismissing Defendant-Appellants’ Appeal

National Indian Law Library Bulletin 4/21/2016

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 4/21/16.

U.S. Courts of Appeals Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/cta/2016cta.html
U.S. v. Harlan (Domestic Assault – Prior Tribal Court Convictions)

U.S. Federal Trial Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/2016dct.html
Johnson W. Greybuffalo v. Edward Wall, Jelli Willard West, Gary Boughton, Samuel Appau (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act; Native American Church)
Ninilchik Traditional Council vs. Tim Towarak (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act – Subsistence Rights)

State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2016state.html
Kitras v. Town of Aquinnah (Indian Child Welfare Act – Foster Care Supervision)

News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Sacred Places section, we feature a couple of stories about the current status of the propos ed Bears Ears National Monument.

U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2016fr.html
We feature proposed rules of the Environmental Protection Agency on water quality standards to protect subsistence fishing rights in Maine.

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2016lr.html
We added these articles:
Tribal executive branches: A path to tribal constitutional reform.
Fresh pursuit from Indian Country: Tribal authority to pursue suspects onto State land.
ICRA reconsidered: New interpretations of familiar rights.
Securing Indian voting rights.
The double life of international law: Indigenous peoples and extractive industries.
Justice Brandeis and Indian Coun try: Lessons from the tribal environmental laboratory.

U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/114_uslegislation.html
We added two new bills:
H.R.4943: Tribal Tax and Investment Reform Act of 2016.
H.R.5014: Tribal Marijuana Sovereignty Act.

News Profile of Indigenous Suicide Crisis

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “The World Indigenous Suicide Crises by the Numbers.”

Federal Circuit Decides Two Shields v. United States

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

Appellants Ramona Two Shields and Mary Louise Defender Wilson brought this action against the United States, seeking redress for themselves and other Native Americans in connection with the government’s alleged mismanagement of oil-and-gas leases on Indian allotment land. The United States Court of Federal Claims found in favor of the government, granting summary judgment on Count I and dismissing Counts II and III. J.A. 1–30. We affirm.

Briefs and other materials here.

Sixth Circuit Briefs in Yaroma v Cashcall

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Yaroma Opening Brief

Cashcall Brief

Yaroma Reply

DCT Order

Nooksack Appellate Court Orders Tribal Court Clerk to Accept Galanda Pro Se Complaint

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order in Galanda v. Bernard:

Galanda v. Bernard Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus

An excerpt:

Thus, we hereby order (1) that the Court Clerk of the Nooksack Tribal Court shall either accept and file Petitioners complaints and related motions or file an answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus with this Court on or before May 16th, 2016, and (2) that the NICS administrator serve a copy of the petition together with this order by mail on the Court Clerk. 

The motion for the writ of mandamus is here.

The court clerk’s refusal to accept the complaint is here.

The complaint is here.

Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here.

Question presented:

The “disparagement clause” in § 2(a) of the Lanham Act bars the registration of a trademark that “may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). The questions presented are:

1. Whether § 2(a)’s disparagement clause violates the First Amendment.

2. Whether § 2(a)’s disparagement clause is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

3. Whether the government’s decades-long delay between registering a trademark and cancelling the registration under § 2(a)’s disparagement clause violates due process.

The Fourth Circuit matter is still pending. This is an effort to jump ahead of the process to join another petition currently pending captioned Lee v. Tam. We posted about that Federal Circuit decision here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Zepeda and Crow Allottees Matters

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

News Coverage of Nooksack Tribal Judge Removal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is “Nooksack Tribe fires judge handling disenrollment case.”

Pauma Band Cross-Petition in Gaming Compact Dispute with California

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the cert petition in Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California:

Pauma Cert Petn

Question presented:

One of the statutory elements for establishing a prima facie case of bad faith negotiation against a state under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., is that “a Tribal-State compact has not been entered into.” 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(ii)(I). In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit interpreted this language according to the status quo ante, holding that an Indian tribe who sought and obtained a declaration rescinding a compact could not pursue a claim for latent bad faith negotiation against a state that induced the compact through material misrepresentations in order to increase its tax receipts (i.e., “revenue sharing”) by 2,460%. With this holding seeming to violate deep-rooted principles of retroactivity and interpretive norms for the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act set forth within this Court’s precedent, the question presented is:
Whether an Indian tribe can pursue a bad faith negotiation claim against a state under Section 2710(d)(7)(A)(i) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act after rescinding a compact induced by misrepresentation or other latent bad faith conduct, and thus bringing its circumstances into compliance with the statutory requirement that “a Tribal-State compact has not been entered into.”
California’s petition is here.
Lower court materials here (panel, en banc).