Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher – Page 465

Wyandot Nation v. United States Breach of Trust Complaint re: Huron Indian Cemetery

June 3, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Wyandot Nation of Kansas v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

1 Complaint

Former Leaders of Jamul Indian Village Sues over Casino

June 3, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Rosales v. Dutschke (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs, WALTER ROSALES and KAREN TOGGERY are Native American residents of San Diego County of one-half or more degree of California Indian blood, and former leaders of the half-blood Indian community, known as the Jamul Indian Village, “JIV,” who until recently lived on the Indian cemetery in Jamul, where their families have lived since the late 1800’s. Rosales and Toggery own and control their families’ human remains and funerary objects that were interred in burial sites below, on, and above the Indian cemetery. Those remains and objects have been feloniously disinterred and desecrated by the Defendants in a race to illegally build a casino on the U.S. government’s portion of the Indian cemetery property before they are stopped and the law is enforced.

Sac and Fox Nation v. Borough of Jim Thorpe Cert Petition

June 2, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Thorpe Petition and Appendix (00059355)

Question presented:

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) applies to “any” institution or state or local government agency that receives federal funds and “has possession of, or control over,” Native American human remains. The Act requires these covered entities to inventory those remains and, at the request of Native American tribes or lineal descendants, to return them.

The question presented is whether the absurdity doctrine allows courts to exempt otherwise covered entities from NAGPRA based on how the entity acquired the Native American remains.

Lower court materials here.

News coverage here. Thanks to MKN.

Larry Nesper on Tribal-State Court Jurisdiction in Wisconsin

June 2, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Larry Nesper has published “Ordering Legal Plurality: Allocating Jurisdiction in State and Tribal Courts in Wisconsin” in PoLar: Political and Legal Anthropology Review.

Here is the abstract:

This article examines how a Wisconsin statute passed in 2009 that authorized state court judges to transfer cases to American Indian tribal courts unfolded as a political and legal process that was both informed by and produced by fundamental conceptions of cultural difference. It calls specific attention to jurisprudential differences in the form of jury trials and peacemaking in figuring the differences between conceptions of tribal membership and state citizenship.

United States Recommends Certiorari Grant in Menominee Tribe v. United States

June 2, 2015June 2, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the government’s brief:

US cert response brief

An excerpt:

The court of appeals correctly held that neither the Tribe’s erroneous prediction of the outcome of litigation, nor its expectation that the government would deny its administrative claims, warrants equitable tolling of the CDA’s six-year limitations period. That decision, however, squarely conflicts with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arctic Slope Native Ass’n v. Sebelius, 699 F .3d 1289 (2012), which found tolling appropriate on materially similar facts. In the government’s view, certiorari is warranted.

Cert petition is here.

Lower court materials here.

Native Students Sues School District over Ban on Eagle Feathers at Graduation

June 2, 2015June 2, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Titman v. Clovis Unified School District (Cal. Super. Ct.):

2015.06.01_Complaint

2015.06.01 App for TRO OSC

ACLU press release here.

Fresno Bee news coverage by Marc Benjamin here.

State of Nebraska v. Parker Cert Petition

June 2, 2015June 4, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

State of Nebraska v Parker cert petition

Questions presented:

In Solem v. Bartlett, the Court articulated a three-part analysis designed to evaluate whether a surplus land act may have resulted in a diminishment of a federal Indian reservation. See 465 U.S. 463, 470-72 (1984). The Court found that the “statutory language used to open the Indian lands,” “events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act,” and “events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act” are all relevant to determining whether diminishment has occurred.

The questions presented by the petition are:

1. Whether ambiguous evidence concerning the first two Solem factors necessarily forecloses any possibility that diminishment could be found on a de facto basis.