Here. The amendment appears minor:
At Slip Op. 22, 768 F.3d at 974, the sentence beginning with <The Indian preference exemption> and ending with <does not extend to Indians.> is deleted and replaced with:
The Indian preference exemption contained in Section 703(i) is therefore necessary to clarify that Title VII’s prohibition against racial or national origin discrimination does not extend to preferential hiring of Indians living on or near reservations.
Panel materials here.
Here is “The Shrinking Sovereign: Tribal Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers in Civil Cases,” (PDF) published in the Columbia Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
Tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers is limited to two narrow areas: consensual economic relationships between tribes and nonmembers, and nonmember activity that threatens tribal integrity. Even within these two narrow fields, the Supreme Court has stated that tribal adjudicatory power over nonmembers—the authority to decide legal rights of individuals, usually in a trial-like setting—cannot exceed the tribe’s legislative power over nonmembers—the power to regulate nonmember activity through the enactment of legislation and regulation. This raises a question that the Court has acknowledged but never answered: whether a tribe may exercise adjudicatory authority over nonmembers as a result of its legislative power. More simply put, is a tribe’s adjudicatory jurisdiction over nonmembers less than, or equal to, its legislative power?
This Note argues that tribes should have concurrent regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over nonmembers in disputes based on consensual economic relationships, but tribal regulation concerning tribal integrity should be subject to greater federal court oversight. Tribal courts should have presumptive jurisdiction to enforce tribalintegrity regulations; however, proof that the tribal court is unfair or inaccessible to nonmembers should permit federal courts to intervene. By drawing on analogous principles in administrative law, civil procedure, and the law of federal courts, this Note provides a workable solution that is consistent with existing Supreme Court tribal law jurisprudence, that conforms with the normative values shaping jurisdiction in other contexts, and that also respects tribal sovereignty.
Here are the materials in State of California v.Iipay Nation Of Santa Ysabel (S.D. Cal.):
Here (PDF):
Here.
Pre-meeting
Meeting with Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Ryan D. Dreveskracht has posted his new paper, “Forfeiting Federalism: The Faustian Pact with Big Tobacco,” (PDF) just published in the Richmond Journal of Law and Public Interest.
Here is the abstract:
This article discusses the effects of the largest legal settlement in United States history: the so-called Master Settlement Agreement, or “MSA.” Part I discusses the settlement generally, and its intended effect on the U.S. tobacco market. Parts II through IV discuss the unintended consequences of the settlement. Specifically, Part II considers how states got into their current disarray, and how a perceived state windfall of billions of dollars ended up putting states on what by all accounts now appears to be very real risk of insolvency. Part III examines how the major tobacco companies are using the states’ dire financial condition to stifle tribal sovereignty and Indian industry. Part IV analyzes the federal government’s role in similar oppressive tactics. The concluding section suggests lessons that might be learned from the MSA.
Call for Subject Matter Experts Participation: Training Development Assistance to Protect Indian Sacred Sites
November 2014
Federal land managing agencies hold in public trust a great diversity of landscapes and sites, including many culturally important sites held sacred by Indian tribes. Recognizing a common goal and obligation to consider the impacts of agency actions on historic properties of traditional cultural and religious importance to tribes, on December 5, 2012, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Energy, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to improve the protection of and Indian access to sacred sites through interagency coordination and collaboration.
As part of this effort, we are soliciting volunteer Subject Matter Experts from the federal government, academia, tribes and tribal NGOs to assist in the development of a training module. This training would improve knowledge among federal employees on the legal, regulatory and policy requirements of federal agencies pertaining to management of federal lands with tribal sacred sites, places and landscapes.
We plan to identify potential Subject Matter Experts in January 2015 and work creating the training will begin immediately. The completed product will be presented at the 2015 White House Tribal Nations Conference later in the year.
If you have experience working with issues or knowledge related to the identification, protection and/or management of Indian sacred sites or places and would like more information, or to be considered to serve as a volunteer Subject Matter Expert, please submit your name, contact information, and federal or state agency, tribal or professional affiliation to:
http://www.denix.osd.mil/na/TribalConsultation.cfm
(***At the above address, please click “Contact Native American Affairs” from the menu on the left)
Inquiries should be submitted no later than December 31, 2014
You must be logged in to post a comment.