Jill Doerfler has published “Those Who Belong: Identity, Family, Blood, and Citizenship among the White Earth Anishinaabeg.”
Michigan State University Press did the honors.
This is very exciting! An important moment in the study of Anishinaabe law and modern tribal membership.
Save the Date!
February 5, 2016
This Symposium will focus on cutting edge issues in federal Indian law and, in so doing, celebrate the 40+ year career of Jonathon D. Varat Professor of Law Carole E. Goldberg. Federal Indian law, broadly defined, governs the relationship between the federal government and the more than 566 Indian nations within the United States, as well as implicating states’ rights and raising questions that bear on tribal law and issues of self-determination. Drawing on the richness and breadth of the field, the Symposium will cover topics related to constitutional law (such as federalism, sovereignty, and equal protection), civil procedure (such as conflict of laws, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue), criminal law (including complex jurisdictional issues over prosecution), and other cutting edge issues (such as gaming, taxation, protection of natural resources, and international human rights law). In a lively, critical event, we will engage the work of Professor Goldberg, but then use her scholarship as a springboard to further explore the vigorous debate around these timely issues.
Contact Professor Angela R. Riley riley@law.ucla.edu for more details.
Ah, it’s a little old, but here are the materials in Navajo Health Foundation – Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell (D. N.M.):
An excerpt:
The Court held a hearing on February 12, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court will order a permanent injunction; and (ii) whether the Court will order a preliminary injunction. The Court will not order a permanent injunction. The Court will, however, order a preliminary injunction to require Defendants Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Yvette Roubideaux, John Hubbard, Jr., and Frank Dayish (collectively, “the Defendants”), to fund the Navajo Health Foundation—Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc., according to the terms of: (i) the Annual Funding Agreement Between Navajo Health Foundation /Sage Memorial Hospital and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Fiscal Year 2013, filed January 13, 2015 (Doc. 21–2)(“2013 AFA”); and (ii) the Indian Self–Determination Contract Between Navajo Health Foundation/Sage Memorial Hospital and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, filed January 13, 2015 (Doc. 21–1)(“2010 Contract”), until this case is resolved on the merits. The Court will also order both parties to comply with the terms and conditions of the 2013 AFA and the 2010 Contract until this case is resolved on the merits. Among other things, this means that the Defendants must reinstate Sage Hospital’s coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(“FTCA”), as Section 4 of the 2013 AFA provides. The Court will not require Sage Hospital to post a bond.
Prior materials here.
Here are the materials in Life Insurance Company of North America v. Hudson Insurance Company (E.D. Okla.):
An excerpt:
LINA argues that tribal exhaustion does not apply to an ERISA case. The exhaustion of tribal remedies requirement was modified in El Paso Natural Gas Company v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473 (1999). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the tribal exhaustion requirement did not apply to a case involving the Price-Anderson Act, a statute with a broad preemptive scheme. LINA argues that the Northern District of Oklahoma has since held that like the Price-Anderson Act at issue in Neztsosie, ERISA preempts state and tribal court claims “related to benefit plans falling under its purview” and concluded that abstention would be inappropriate. Vandever v. Osage Nation Enterprise, Inc., No. 06-CV-380-GKF-TLW, 2009 WL 702776, at *5 (March 16, 2009 N.D. Okla.) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1144). See also Coppe v. Sac & Fox Casino Healthcare Plan, No. 14-2598-RDR, 2015 WL 1137733 (March 13, 2015 D. Kansas). This court agrees.
Hudson argues, however, that Vandever is not controlling in this case because suits between insurers for reimbursement of benefits paid are not pre-empted by ERISA. Hudson is correct. Complete preemption under ERISA “is limited to claims brought under § 502(a), and that provision, in turn, is limited by its terms to claims ‘by a participant or beneficiary’ of an ERISA-regulated plan ‘to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.’” Hansen v. Harper Excavating, Inc., 641 F.3d 1216, 1221-22 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B)).
Here are the materials in Town of Browning v. Sharp (D. Mont.):
Prior post here.
Here:
2704764 – CPN-OTC Demand for Arbitration
An excerpt:
The Citizen Potawatomi Nation (“Nation” or “Claimant”), a federally-recognized Indian tribal government, hereby demands arbitration of a dispute between the Nation and the State of Oklahoma (“Oklahoma” or “Respondent”). The Nation seeks:
(1) determination by an arbitrator under AAA Rule R-7 of the arbitrator’s own jurisdiction and the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement, which is part of the Dispute Resolution procedures within a Tribal-State Gaming Compact that the Nation claims to provide the exclusive means by which Oklahoma may enforce obligations set forth in the Compact;
(2) determination by an arbitrator of whether the Dispute Resolution (including arbitration) procedures of the Compact are the exclusive means by which Oklahoma may seek to enforce against the Nation’s Compact facilities the Nation’s duties imposed to comply with state laws governing sales and service of alcoholic beverages, as imposed by Compact Part 4(I);
Here are the materials in Harris v. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (C.D. Cal.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.