Here is “A Man of Healing, A Saga of Suffering.”
WaPo Profile of Sexual Abuse in Indian Country
Here is “A Man of Healing, A Saga of Suffering.”
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
NYTs Profile of Alleged Corruption at MHA Nation
Ninth Circuit Holds Strate Governs Navajo Civil Jurisdiction over Nonmembers on State Highways
Here is the unpublished memorandum. An excerpt:
Appellants conceded at oral argument that the Navajo Nation has not retained the right to exclude nonmembers on U.S. Highway 160. Consequently, the highway is the equivalent of non-Indian fee land for jurisdictional purposes, and this case is governed by Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). See Strate, 520 U.S. at 455-56.
Briefs and oral argument materials here.
Federal district court materials here.
Tribal court materials here.
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Wolf Management Plan
Here.
From 2013.
An excerpt:
The purpose of this plan is to provide a course of action that will ensure the long-term survival of a self-sustaining, wild gray wolf (Canis lupus) population in the 1842 ceded territory in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It is written to encourage cooperation among agencies, communities, private and corporate landowners, special interest groups, and all Michigan residents. The Plan conforms to the provisions of the Federal Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan, which includes Michigan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992), Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and Management Plan (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1997), and the Michigan Wolf Management Plan (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 2008).
Lansing State Journal Profile of Mich. SCT Justice Michael Cavanagh
Blast from the Past: American Indian Attorneys in the DOJ Pic
See how many people you recognize:
Blast from the Past: “The Supreme Court Decision that Jolted Tribal Jurisdiction” (1989)
Current Utah law prof Alex Skibine and Melanie Beth Olivero published a scathing critique of the Supreme Court’s decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe in the American Indian Journal:
American Indian Journal article
Of particular note is the prediction that non-Indian crime would go unpunished.
Professor Rob Williams to be interviewed on Bill Moyers and Company this weekend, beginning December 26
University of Arizona Law Professor Rob Williams will be interviewed on Bill Moyers and Company beginning this weekend, December 26, in a half hour broadcast that airs throughout the weekend depending on your local affiliate.
FULL SHOW LINK: http://billmoyers.com/segment/show-351-robert-williams/
EMBED CODE:
Check you local listings, most likely your local PBS affiliate throughout this upcoming weekend.
You can check show times and channels using this tool: http://billmoyers.com/schedule/
Tenth Circuit Issues Amended Opinion in Oklahoma v. Hobia
Here. Like its earlier decision, today’s amended opinion concludes that the district court erroneously granted the State’s request for a preliminary injunction and held that the State’s complaint, which alleged class III gaming activities on non-Indian lands, failed to state a claim under IGRA.
The Tenth Circuit also reiterated that arbitration provisions in the state’s gaming compact effectively barred Oklahoma from suing tribal officials in federal court for purported violations of the compact. The court remanded the matter to the Northern District of Oklahoma with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and to dismiss Oklahoma’s complaint with prejudice.
Also, the court denied the petition for en banc review.
Panel materials are here.
Arizona COA Decides ICWA Expert Witness Appeal
Here is the unpublished opinion in Charlotte G. v. Dept. of Child Safety.
An excerpt:
Charlotte G. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights to B.G. and W.G. (collectively, “the
children”). The children are members of the Gila River Indian Community
(“Tribe”).1 On appeal, Mother does not contest that the statutory grounds
for severance were proven, that there was a substantial likelihood that she
would not be capable in the near future of exercising proper and effective
parental care and control, and that severance of the relationship was in the
best interests of the children. Mother contends, however, that the juvenile
court erred in terminating her parental rights because the State failed to
prove additional elements necessary to terminate a parent-child
relationship under the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”). For the
following reasons, we affirm.
You must be logged in to post a comment.