H/t Pechanga.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
New Scholarship in Wyoming’s Big Horn River General Stream Adjudication
Jason Robison has posted his forthcoming paper, “Wyoming’s Big Horn General Stream Adjudication, 1977-2014,” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in the Wyoming Law Review.
An excerpt:
Aimed at addressing water rights in the State of Wyoming’s portion of the Wind/Big Horn Basin, including those held by the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe tribes on the Wind River Indian Reservation, the Big Horn general stream adjudication is currently poised to draw to a close after 37 years. This article offers an overview of this complex and often contentious legal proceeding, relying mainly on primary sources contained in a digital archive, and situates the adjudication within the broader context of western water law.
AALS Indian Nations Section Panel on Michigan v. Bay Mills
Alex Pearl, Ed Kneedler, Ryan Seelau, Thomas Zlamal, and Bill Wood
New Scholarship on Indian Country Payday Lenders and Arbitration Clauses
Who Won American Indian Law and Policy in 2014?
After Grantland’s similar tournament, we at Turtle Talk are conducting our own 64-team tournament to decide the biggest stories of 2014. We will begin the voting next week, but here are the teams in four categories. Seeding to be determined later. Useful comments on seeding welcome. See you Monday!
Category 1 — Indian nations
Alaska Native tribes
Bay Mills Indian Community
Big Lagoon Rancheria
Buena Vista Rancheria
Cayuga Indian Nation of NY
Cowlitz Tribe
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe
Gun Lake Tribe
Kialegee Tribal Town
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe
Navajo Nation
Omaha Tribe
Oneida Indian Tribe of WI
Resource tribes
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Wind River Tribes
Category 2 — Doctrines, Laws, and Issues
Alternative energy
American Indian education
Climate change
Federal Indian law preemption
Human trafficking
Indian Child Welfare Act
Indian criminal sentencing
Internet gaming
Intra-tribal disputes
Rule 19
Indian country voting rights
Tribal court exhaustion
Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act
Tribal labor relations
Tribal sovereign immunity
Violence against Women Act
Category 3 — People and Parties
Hon. William Canby
Chris Deschene
Sarah Deer
Dollar General Corp.
Hon. Keith Harper
Hon. Eric Holder
Hon. Diane Humetewa
Neal Katyal
Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee
Dean Stacy Leeds/Angelique EagleWoman
McAllen Grace Brethren Church
Frank Pommersheim
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Hon. Kevin Washburn
Robert Williams
Bill Wood
Category 4 — Groups (aka Miscellaneous)
1491s
Authors of law review articles on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
Borough of Jim Thorpe
Carcieri challengers
Cobell settlement beneficiaries
Cohen Handbook
Dept. of Justice
Gray wolves
Indian country pot growers
National Native American Bar Assn.
New Mexico state government
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
Tribal In-House Counsel Assn.
Tribal Law and Policy Institute
Tribal sovereign lenders
Tribal Supreme Court Project
Washington and 27 Tribes Agree on Compact Amendments
Are Elfin Sites More Sacred to Icelanders than Native Sacred Sites are to Americans?
Yes, it appears.
Former U.S. Attorney Kris Olsen has this piece titled “Indigenous Rights? Of Hiddenfolk and Native People” in the Oregon State Bar Bulletin.
ABA Journal Article on American Indian Religious Freedom Post-Hobby Lobby
Reminder: USSC Tribal Issues Advisory Group Application Deadline Jan. 9, 2015
Here.
Minnesota COA Holds Warrantless Search of Tribal Casino Patron Not Covered by ICRA
Here is the opinion in State v. Yang. An excerpt:
Appellant challenges his convictions of three counts of controlled substance crime in the first degree, arguing that security guards employed by the Mystic Lake Casino Hotel violated his Fourth Amendment protections under the Indian Civil Rights Act and the United States Constitution when they conducted a warrantless search of his satchel in a hotel room and discovered methamphetamine and marijuana. Because the security guards were not acting as tribal governmental agents, appellant’s rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act were not violated. We affirm.
You must be logged in to post a comment.