Quapaw Tribe Prevails in Series of Trust Breach Claims against US

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

83 Quapaw Motion for Partial Summary J

92 US Opposition

99 Quapaw Reply

119 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This case involves the claims of the Quapaw Indian Tribe of Oklahoma for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust obligations. On April 6, 2015, the Quapaw Tribe filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the following three grounds: (1) that the Government is liable for annual educational payments of $1,000 from 1932 to the present under the Treaty of 1833; (2) that the Government is liable for $31,680.80 in unauthorized disbursements from the Quapaw Tribe’s trust accounts, as found in the 1995 Tribal Trust Funds Reconciliation Project Report prepared by Arthur Andersen LLP; and (3) that the Government is liable for $70,330.71 in transactions that should have been credited to the Quapaw Tribe’s trust accounts but were not, as reported in the 2010 Quapaw Analysis.

Tribal Disenrollee (San Pasqual Band of Diegueño Mission Indians) Suit in Federal Court against Interior Fails

Here are the materials in Alto v. Jewell (S.D. Cal.):

103-2 Alto Motion for Summary J

110-1 Interior Cross Motion

111 Alto Reply

113 Interior Reply

125 DCt Order

We posted on this case here, here, here, and here.

Squaxin Island Tribe Amicus Brief in State of Washington Water Resource Rule Appeal

Here is the brief in Hirst v. Whatcom County (Wash.):

Squaxin Island Amicus Brief

Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe Sues over Deepwater Horizon Spill

Here is the complaint in Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe v. BP Exploration & Production Co. (E.D. La.):

1 Complaint

SCOTUS Grants Cert in Omaha Reservation Case

Here is the Court’s order list.

Here are the petition stage briefs in Nebraska v. Parker:

Cert petition

US Cert opposition 

NARF page on this case.

Lower court materials here.

Interior Prevails in Two Challenges to Ione Band Trust Acquisition

Here are the materials in No Casino in Plymouth v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):

72-1 No Casino in Plymouth Motion for Summary J

77 Ione Band Motion to Strike

80 Opposition to 77

85 Ione Band Reply re 77

90-1 US Motion for Summary J

91-1 Ione Band Motion for Summary J

93 No Casino in Plymouth Opposition

93-2 No Casino in Plymouth Reply

94 US Reply

96 Ione Band Reply

100 DCT Order

Here are the materials in County of Amador v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):

65 County Motion for Summary J

82 Ione Band Motion for Summary J

84-1 US Motion for Summary J

85 County Reply

86 US Reply

87 Ione Band Reply

95 DCT Order

We posted on these cases earlier, here, here, and here.

IBIA Opinion Rejecting Grand Traverse County’s Challenge to GTB Trust Land Acquisition

Here is the opinion in Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners v. Acting Midwest Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs (61ibia273).

Op-Ed Supporting Tribe in Penobscot River Dispute

Here is “We’re not giving them smallpox blankets, but we’re taking Penobscots’ river.”

Bob Miller on the United States Duty to Confer with American Indian Governments

Robert Miller has posted his paper, “Consultation or Consent: The United States Duty to Confer with American Indian Governments,” forthcoming in the North Dakota Law Review. Here is the abstract:

This article explores the current international law movement to require nation/states to consult with Indigenous peoples before undertaking actions that impact Indigenous nations and communities. The United Nations took a significant step in this area of law in September 2007 when the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration contains many provisions requiring states to confer and consult with Indigenous peoples, and in many instances to obtain their “free, prior and informed consent.” This article undertakes an original and detailed investigation into how the free, prior and informed consent standard emerged in the drafting of the Declaration.

But the article also points out that consultations and obtaining the consent of Indigenous peoples is nothing new in the political and diplomatic relations between American Indian nations and the United States. From the very founding of the U.S., it has maintained a government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes. This relationship is expressly recognized in the U.S. Constitution, and is reflected in hundreds of U.S./Indian treaties and in the history of the interactions between these governments. A nearly constant stream of formal and informal consultations and diplomatic dealings has marked this relationship.

In recent decades, though, the international community has begun focusing on consultations with Indigenous peoples and has increased the international law obligation on states to consult. The international regime is also moving far beyond mere consultations and is requiring states to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples. On the surface, requiring the United States to obtain the informed consent of Indian nations and peoples, before undertaking actions that affect them, might be more onerous than just consulting with tribal governments.

This article examines the history and modern-day processes for United States consultations with Indian nations and the emerging international law standard of free, prior and informed consent. The article argues that the United States should continue and even enhance the consent paradigm that has always been the goal of federal/tribal relations. And, the article also argues that the United States should have little trouble adapting to the new international law consent movement.

 

Grant Christensen on Recent SCOTUS Decisions on Personal Jurisdiction and Tribal Courts

Grant Christensen has posted “Personal Jurisdiction and Tribal Courts after Walden and Bauman: The Inadvertent Impact of Supreme Court Jurisdictional Decisions on Indian Country.

Here is the abstract:

In 2014 the United States Supreme Court added two new cases to the canon on the meaning of due process in the context of personal jurisdiction. These cases clarified the metes and bounds of specific and general personal jurisdiction. However, decisions that fit within the state and federal court system do not always easily have cross applications to tribal courts – which nonetheless are obliged to extend due process rights via the Indian Civil Rights Act. This article takes the Supreme Court’s 2014 decisions and discusses their potential application to tribal courts and their use within Indian Country.