Here are the new pleadings in Penobscot Nation v. Schneider (D. Me.):
131 Motion to File Amicus Brief
Cross-motions for summary judgment are here. First amended complaint here.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
New Student Scholarship on the Environmental Impact of Federal Recognition of American Indian Nations
The Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review has published “People of the Outside: The Environmental Impact of Federal Recognition of American Indian Nations” (PDF).
Here is the abstract:
American Indians interact with land and the environment in a manner that is distinct from non-native peoples. They view natural resources as an integral part of their way of life. As a result, Indian tribes desire to implement policies and programs that will protect their natural resources. In order to receive federal assistance for these policies and programs, however, a tribe must be federally recognized. The Duwamish tribe, which resides near Seattle, Washington, is not a federally recognized tribe. Despite years of fighting for recognition, the Duwamish cannot take part in the improvement of their tribal region’s air and water quality. Alternatively, the Forest County Potawatomi Community is federally recognized. The tribe has utilized its federal status to redesignate its reservation lands under the Clean Air Act, which brings stricter environmental regulations on and around the reservation. As long as the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ criteria for federal recognition continue to be arbitrarily and haphazardly enforced, unrecognized tribes like the Duwamish will continue to lack the power to address the environmental issues in their tribal region, in contravention of their fundamental beliefs and way of life.
TPM: “Air Force General Resigns After Saying Officers Looked ‘Drunker Than 10,000 Indians'”
Here.
Proposal to Put John Ross on the $20 Bill
Here is “Should Jackson Stay on the $20 Bill?”
New Scholarship on American Indian Probate Reform Act
David Armstrong has published “Estate Planning for American Indians: AIPRA for the General Practitioner” (PDF) in the Denver University Law Review Online.
An excerpt:
Indian law is sometimes viewed as niche practice area limited to those who work directly with tribes or those who work on or near a reservation. Despite this perception the general practitioner regardless of where they work should have passing familiarity with laws which affect tribal members who often reside outside of reservations. Two primary examples of this are the Indian Child Welfare Act and the American Indian Probate Reform Act (AIPRA). While the former is a subject worthy of an extended discussion this article will focus exclusively on AIPRA and related acts which effect the estate plans of American Indians wherever they live.
New Student Scholarship on Medicaid and Indian Tribes
Here is “Medicaid: Can Federal Responsibilities, State Authorities, and Tribal Sovereignty be Reconciled?,” published in the Wyoming Law Review.
An excerpt:
The decisions made by state governments related to Medicaid funding of American Indian and Alaska Native health care is not consistent with either the federal responsibility or the unique government-to-government relationship the Tribes have with the federal government. The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing optional Medicaid expansion for states further emphasizes how state authority in Medicaid implementation decisions impacts federally funded care delivered to American Indians and Alaska Natives. American Indians and Alaska Natives are disproportionally impacted in states not expanding Medicaid.
Tulalip Tribes En Banc Petition in Compact Dispute with State of Washington
Here is the petition in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:
Pueblo of Isleta v. NLRB Complaint
Here:
An excerpt:
This is an action to protect the sovereignty of the Pueblo of Isleta (“Pueblo”) from infringement by the National Labor Relations Board and its members (collectively the “Board”) in violation of federal law, specifically this Circuit’s clear rule that general federal laws do not apply to a tribal government’s exercise of sovereign authority absent express congressional authorization, and that the NLRA does not contain such express authorization. Dobbs v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 600 F.3d 1275, 1283 (10th Cir. 2010). At a hearing to commence on May 5, 2015 the Board intends – unless restrained – to apply the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169, to the Pueblo’s regulation, operation, and management of gaming in the exercise of its inherent sovereign authority and pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, by subjecting the Pueblo to trial on unfair labor practice charges brought under Section 8(a) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a). The Board is proceeding on behalf of an individual, Shawna Perea (“Perea”), whom the Board alleges was terminated for allegedly engaging in concerted activities protected under Section 7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 157.
Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Pine Ridge Voting Rights Act Matter
Here is the order in Poor Bear v. Jackson County (D. S.D.):
Motion to dismiss and other materials here.
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Pottawatomi Seek Corporate Counsel for Economic Development Arm
Here:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.