Navajo Sues Interior over Failure to Approve 638 Compact re: Tribal Judiciary

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. United States (D. D.C.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages brought against the Department and the Secretary for Defendants’ violations of the Indian  Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, P.L. 93-638, as amended and codified at  25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. (“ISDEAA”), and regulations promulgated thereunder, and for  Defendants’ breach of a contract made under the ISDEAA with the Navajo Nation (“Nation”). The Nation submitted its annual funding agreement (“AFA”) proposal for operations of the Navajo Nation Judicial Branch for the 2014 calendar year (“CY 2014”) to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), an agency of the United States Department of the Interior (“Department”), and the BIA failed to take the statutorily required action to approve or lawfully decline that proposal before the expiration of the 90-day period set forth in the ISDEAA and regulations promulgated thereunder. Therefore, as a matter of law, the CY 2014 AFA must be deemed approved as proposed by the Nation. Pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. (“CDA”), and sections 110(a) and (d) of the ISDEAA, 25 U.S.C. § 450m-1(a) and (d), the Nation submitted to the BIA a claim seeking relief from the Defendants’ breaches of this deemed-approved contract (No. A12AV00698: the “Contract”) and CY 2014 AFA. The Contract and the CY 2014 AFA are collectively referred to herein as the “CY 2014 Agreement.” The BIA improperly disclaimed the authority to decide the Nation’s CDA claim and thereby denied it. The Nation brings this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendants’ violations of the ISDEAA and $15,762,985 in damages for their breach of the CY 2014 Agreement, plus statutory interest from January 3, 2014.

Harvard Law Review Comment on Michigan v. Bay Mills

Here is Leading Case: Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014).

An excerpt:

While the Court’s decision is a victory for those who feared the abrogation of tribal immunity, its suggestion that states seek remedies in state law signals approval of leaving the resolution of legal questions central to state-tribe disputes to the states, even when the question concerns the extent of Indian land. Such a view would be inconsistent with recent trends generally favoring greater federal control and congressional support for tribal self-determination, and could result in actions that are detrimental to tribes.

Briefs in NEPA Challenge to Interior Drilling Approvals re: Osage Mineral Estate

Here are selected materials so far in Donelson v. United States (N.D. Okla.):

46 First Amended Complaint

124 B&G Motion to Dismiss

136 Devon Motion to Dismiss

148 US Motion to Dismiss

162 Donelson Response to B&G Motion to Dismiss

163 Donelson Response to Devon Motion to Dismiss

166 Donelson Response to US Motion to Dismiss

170 B&G Reply

174 US Reply

175 Devon Reply

Update (2/28/17):

229 DCT Order Dismissing Claims

Mark Tilsen at HuffPo on Wounded Knee 1890 and 1973

Here is “1890 and 1973: Do We Really Know What Happened at Wounded Knee?”

Hat tip to Matt Campbell at TEDNA.

Pascua Yaqui Tribe Guide to Implementing VAWA’s Tribal Jurisdictional Provisions

Amazing work!

Practical Guide to Implementing VAWA TLOA letter revision 3

Practical Guide VAWA CLE final version

VAWA CLE v2

Many thanks for Fred Urbina for sending this around.

Congrats to Rabia Belt and Greg Ablavsky!!!!

Winners of the Kathryn T. Preyer Scholar Award, a very big deal in legal history circles!

I met Rabia (JD/PhD from Michigan — Go Blue twice) when she audited my Federal Indian Law class in the winter of 2011. I strongly recommend all her work, but my favorite is the paper on madness. 🙂

I met Greg through his American Indian legal history work (here, here and here), some of which he workshopped a few summers back at Angela Riley’s wonderful UCLA junior scholars workshop.

Choctaw Nation Attempt to Intervene in Keepseagle Denied

Here are the intervention materials in Keepseagle v. Vilsack (D. D.C.):

647-1 Choctaw Nation Motion to Intervene

705-1 Great Plains Claimants Motion

716 Plaintiffs Response to Great Plains Claimants

717 Plaintiffs Response to Choctaw Nation

718 US Response to Choctaw Nation

719 US Response to Great Plains Claimants

728 DCT Intervention Order

Commentary on Indian Law on Bar Exams

Here is “Keeping Indian Law on State Bar Exams.

Suzan Harjo To Be Awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom

Here.

Here is her bio:

Suzan Harjo
Suzan Harjo is a writer, curator, and activist who has advocated for improving the lives of Native peoples throughout her career. As a member of the Carter Administration and as current president of the Morning Star Institute, she has been a key figure in many important Indian legislative battles, including the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Dr. Harjo is Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee, and a citizen of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes.

Kansas Court of Appeals Holds Evidence of ICWA Notice May Be Filed After Parental Rights Termination Hearing

Here is the opinion in In re M.H.:

In re MH

An excerpt:

Father is correct that the Act requires that a party seeking to terminate the parental rights of a child that may be Native American must follow specific procedures for notifying the child’s potential tribe about a termination-of-parental-rights hearing. See 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) (2012). Though the best way for a court to ensure compliance with the Act is for the State to file the notices it has sent and the return receipts it has received with the district court before a termination hearing, the State’s failure to do so here doesn’t require reversal. The State filed the required notice and receipts after the hearing in this case, and those filings prove that the district court complied with the Act.