Gila River Indian Community Letter to NACDL re: Bryant Amicus Brief

Here:

NACDL US v Bryant 04-15-16

An excerpt:

I am writing to you to express the Gila River Indian Community’s concerns regarding the Brief Amici Curiae of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Experienced Tribal Court Litigators in Support of Respondent (“Brief’) recently filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Bryant (No. 15-420). The Brief makes numerous attacks on the Community’s criminal justice system, hasty generalizations regarding tribal justice systems, and omits relevant facts and conclusions regarding the Community.

The stated purpose of the Brief is “to draw upon amici’s knowledge and experience with tribal-court criminal litigation to give this Court an informed perspective from which to assess these claims.” Brief at 4 (emphasis added). Unfortunately, the Brief does not do so. Instead, it reads as a narrative and anecdotal attack on tribal justice systems, prominently including the Community. These attacks on the Community’s criminal justice system have often come in a third-party form, such as letters from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Association of Federal Defenders to members of Congress regarding proposed legislation. Despite prominent mention of the Community, these letters- and the Brief-were not provided to the Community when sent or filed. We suspect it may have to do with the favorable outcomes to the Community in the cases discussed in the Brief.

Briefs and other materials in this case are here.

Updated Materials in Suit over N. Arapaho from Wind River Joint Business Council

Here are the new materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Lacounte (D. Mont.):

17-1 NAT Motion for PI

26 Shoshone Business Council Motion to Dismiss

28 Tribal Court Parties Motion to Intervene

40 Shoshone Business Council Response to 17

44 DOI Response to 28

45 Shoshone Business Council Response to 28

49 NAT Reply in Support of 17

50 DCT Order Denying Motion to Intervene

51 NAT Response to 26

Complaint here.

National Indian Law Library Bulletin 4/15/2016

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 4/15/16.

U.S. Courts of Appeals Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/cta/2016cta.html
Oklevueha Native American Church Of Hawaii, Inc. v. Lynch (Religious Freedom; Controlled Substances)
Navajo Nation v. Department of Interior (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act – Inventory Remains)

State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2016state.html
In re CM (Indian Child Welfare Act – Foster Care Supervision)

News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Land & Water section, we feature an article on saving the salmon with planned removal of dams on Klamath River.

U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2016fr.html
We feature a notice of the Department of Interior on a draft environmental justice strategic plan which includes cooperation and participation of tribal governments.

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2016lr.html
We added these articles:
Contract and (tribal) jurisdiction.
Tips for practicing in tribal courts.
Judicial abrogation: Montana and its progeny’s effect on Freedmen’s treaty rights.
Tribal court comity: Settled areas of the law.
Manifest Destiny: A comparison of the constitutional status of Indian tribes and U.S. overseas territories.
Insights from in-House and Interior: Top 10 lessons from my 10 years of experience.
New approaches to energy development in Indian Country: The trust relationship and tribal self-determination at (yet another) crossroads.
Exploring the intersection of economic development and community well-being in Indian Country.
Ethics and Indian Country.
The Obama administration and Indi an law–a pledge to build a true nation-to-nation relationship.

U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/114_uslegislation.html
We added two bills:
S.2785: A bill to protect Native children and promote public safety in Indian country.
S.2796: A bill to repeal certain obsolete laws relating to Indians.

US Confiscates Fake Indian Art from Santa Fe Plaza Stores

Here is the complaint in United States v. 13 Pieces of Counterfeit Native American Jewelry (D.N.M.):

Complaint

And here is the complaint in United States v. $20,109 in U.S. Currency (D.N.M.):

Complaint

Federal Court Dismisses Wrongful Termination Claim against Coushatta Tribe

Here are the materials in Anderson v. Coushatta Casino Resort (W.D. La.):

18-1 Motion to Dismiss

22 Reponse

25 DCT Order

Cert Stage Briefs in Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri

Here:

2015 12 14 Petition for Writ; Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County et al v Chaudhuri et al

US Cert Opp

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Holds Tribal Employees are Not Police Officers under ICRA

Here are the materials in United States v. Nealis (N.D. Okla.):

16 Motion to Suppress

18 Response

23 Supplemental Brief

26 DCT Order

Federal Court Allows Menominee to Intervene in Forest County Challenge to Gaming Compact Rejection

Here is the order in Forest County Potawatomi Community v. United States (D.D.C.):

41 DCT Order Granting Menominee Motion to Intervene

Briefs are here.

Jim Anaya Named Colorado Law Dean

Holy cow! Fantastic news!

Here.

Seventh Circuit Briefs in MCZ Development Corp. v. Dickinson Wright

Here:

MCZ Opening Brief

Dickinson Brief

Other briefs TK

Lower court materials here.

Statement from the appellant’s brief:

This is a legal malpractice action stemming from legal services and advice Appellees provided Appellants beginning in December 2009. The legal services and advice pertained to Appellants’ planned investment in and development of an Indian gaming casino in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, in conjunction with the Kialegee Tribal Town (the “Tribe”), an Indian tribe.The advice which Appellants contend caused them to sustain damages hinged on whether potential legal or regulatory issues could prevent Appellants from moving forward with the project once development and construction of the site began.