Ninth Circuit Briefs in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 11-02 (Lummi v. S’Klallam Tribes & Tulalip)

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (subproceeding 11-02):

Lummi Nation Brief

Tulalip Tribes Answer Brief

Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes Brief

Lower Elwha Brief

Lummi Reply

Suquamish Tribe Brief

Oral argument video here.

Johnsen on the Economics of the Potlatch

Bruce Johnsen has posted “The Potlatch as Fractional Reserve Banking” on SSRN, forthcoming in Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations, edited by Terry L. Anderson. Here is the quick description:

This chapter focuses on the Northwest Coast Tribes’ early capital markets and specifically on how their potlatch system served as a system of fractional reserve banking to expand their money supply and finance wealth enhancing investments.

Clarkson, Spilde, and Claw Nez on Tribal Online Commerce

Gavin Clarkson, Kate Spilde, and Carma Claw Nez have posted “Online Sovereignty: The Law and Economics of Tribal Electronic Commerce” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

In 1886, the US Supreme Court wrote that, for Indian tribes, “the people of the states where they are found are often their deadliest enemies.” Recently, state agencies and regulators have continued that tradition of hostility by improperly attempting to regulate electronic commerce businesses operated by tribal governments that are more properly subject to regulations established by tribal law and subject to federal oversight. Despite the fact that these online businesses operate exclusively under tribal law and make their tribal affiliation clear to customers, certain state regulators have demanded absolute compliance with state law, even when such laws are from states thousands of miles away. Not only does this overreaching by uninformed state regulators limit the products available to consumers but it also severely undercuts on-reservation economic development, imperils tribal electronic commerce, and challenges basic notions of tribal sovereignty.

Businesses and consumers entering into commercial contracts rely heavily on consistency and predictability in contracting, including when the parties mutually agree to apply tribal law or utilize tribal courts to resolve disputes. Uniform interpretation and enforcement of such agreements are critical to ensuring continued investment in tribal businesses. With over one quarter of American Indians living in poverty, nearly twice the national average, it has never been more important to promote confidence in the Indian economy. When courts do not give full force and effect to contracting parties’ desire to resolve their private disputes using tribal courts and tribal law, this confidence is threatened. While it is unclear how this controversy will ultimately play out, one thing is certain: states are not only undermining tribal innovation and harming tribal economies but also attacking tribal sovereignty itself.

Perhaps lost in the legal rancor, however, are the very real human and economic consequences of the loss of tribal revenues from e-commerce business, as well as the potential damage to tribal e-commerce as a whole. In this article, we present results of our empirical research into the economic impact of tribal online lending in Indian Country. We first frame the issue with a brief summary of the legal foundations for tribal e-commerce and tribal lending in particular. We then present several case studies of tribes that have engaged in online lending, focusing on the direct economic impact to those tribal communities. We conclude the article with policy arguments as to why state and federal regulators should support rather than suppress tribal e-commerce, including tribal small-dollar online lending.

University of Colorado to Host Panel on Indigenous Peoples and Climate Justice

Here:

 

The Center for Values and Social Policy
 and
 The Center for Native American and Indigenous Studies

present a panel discussion on
Indigenous Peoples and Climate Justice

Tuesday, March 1st
5:00-6:30
Hellems Room 252

 

Featured Speakers:
            Sarah A Krakoff: Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School
                       “Tribal Self-Determination, Cultural Survival, and Climate Justice”
           Heather Lazrus: Project Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
                        “Rising Voices of Indigenous People in Weather and Climate Science and Policy”
            Kyle Whyte: Associate Professor of Philosophy, Michigan State University
“Indigenous Climate Justice, Collective Continuance and Settler Colonialism”
This event is free and open to the public.
No registration is required.

Co-sponsors: the Department of Philosophy, Department of Ethnic Studies, the Environmental Studies Program, and the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment.

Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission Sues San Juan County over Voting Rights

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission v. San Juan County (D. Utah):

San Juan County Voting Rights – Complaint 2-25 – FINAL

Ninth Circuit Affirms Federal Critical Habitat Rules for Polar Bears

Here is the opinion in Alaska Oil and Gas Assn. v. Jewell.

We posted lower court materials here and here.

Justice Thomas Asked Questions in Oral Argument Today

Here.

NYU Law Review Seeking Submissions from Indian Law Scholars

A message from NYU Law Review editor Raymond Fadel…

NYU Law Review is seeking submissions from Indian law scholars.

  1. Online Series on Dollar General.

Our Online Department has voted to publish an online feature series spotlighting the Dollar General case, and its legal and policy implications. Amongst other things, we are currently looking for pieces that discuss the case itself, its legal background and importance, and its implications for Indian and non-Indian country alike—particularly Indigenous women’s issues and its insights into women’s issues in general.

To facilitate timely debate, we plan on publishing the spotlight series shortly after the Dollar General case is decided. We encourage you to submit your Essays and Comments within two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision, but of course, you are welcome to send your pieces for consideration as soon as you have them.

Online submissions have a maximum word limit of 10,000 words and may be submitted directly to our Senior Online Editor, Agne Jomantaite, at aj785@nyu.edu or via Scholastica. More information on our submission policy can be found on our website, www.nyulawreview.org.

  1. Print Articles.

As always, our Articles Department is seeking submissions covering diverse subject-matters, especially including general issues in Indian law that would be accessible to a generalist audience. Article submissions must have a minimum of 10,000 words and be submitted on Scholastica. In addition to submission on Scholastica, you may also forward any submission directly to our Senior Articles Editor, Tyler Domino, at tjd266@nyu.edu. The Department is accepting unsolicited articles through the end of March, 2016.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Akini v. State of Hawai’i

Here:

Opening Brief

Office of Hawaiian Affairs Brief

Na’i Aupuni and the Akamai Foundation Brief

Hawai’i Brief

US Amicus Brief

Reply Brief

Indian Trust Breach Claim over Estate in Probate Deferred until Conclusion of Admin. Proceedings

Here are the materials in Fredericks v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

7 US Motion to Dismiss

15 Response

17 Reply

39-1 US Supplemental Brief

43 DCT Order