Northwest Intertribal Court System Appellate Opinions Now Online

Here.

More details:

NICS Appellate Reporter announcement

NICS Appellate Reporter press release

NICS Appellate Reporter print edition order form

 

Federal Court Sends Coeur d’Alene Tribe Poker Dispute to Arbitration

Here are the updated materials in State of Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe (D. Idaho):

33 Coeur d’Alene Tribe Reply

35 DCT Order

Prior briefs here.

Ambassador Harper delivers Joint Statement on Eliminating Violence Against Indigenous Women and Girls

Here is “Joint Statement on Eliminating Violence against Indigenous Women and Girls.”

The text:

I have the honor to make this statement on behalf 35 countries.

[Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Congo, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, St Kitts and Nevis, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.]

As we prepare for the upcoming World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, we express great concern that indigenous women and girls often suffer multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination and poverty that increase their vulnerability to all forms of violence.  We also stress the need to seriously address the high and disproportionate rates of violence, which takes many forms, against indigenous women and girls worldwide.  Indigenous women and girls have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as everyone else, and a common recognition of those rights must underpin efforts to address violence against indigenous women and girls.

Improving access to justice and empowering indigenous peoples are critical to this effort.  We recognize that indigenous peoples themselves may well be in the best position to combat violence against indigenous women and girls.  They are closer and better able to address the issue when provided with tools and the legal capability to stop the violence.  We will strive to, and encourage other states to, where appropriate, enable and empower indigenous peoples to better address these issues themselves by providing resources, adopting legislation and policies, and taking other necessary steps in an effort to stop the cycle of violence that affects them.  We also stress the need for coordination and dialogue between state and indigenous justice institutions to improve access to justice for indigenous women and girls and to enhance awareness campaigns, including ones directed at men and boys.

Ending the global scourge of violence against indigenous women and girls will also require comprehensive support services for survivors and improved data collection to illuminate the scope of the problem.  It will demand intensified measures to provide accountability for perpetrators and redoubled efforts to prevent abuse.  It will also entail improvements in indigenous women’s access to birth registration.  Respecting and promoting reproductive rights – including the right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence, and access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services – must be integral to our efforts to end violence against indigenous women and girls.

We believe the topic of violence against indigenous women and girls requires greater attention.  We encourage the relevant UN mechanisms to recommend ways to use the UN’s existing tools more effectively to prevent and address this serious problem.  We also believe the upcoming World Conference on Indigenous Peoples should consider this problem and ways to heighten awareness and respond to this concern throughout the UN system.  The meaningful participation of indigenous representatives in the World Conference and its preparatory process will be essential in this regard.

Complaint Challenging New 30-Year Eagle Permit Rule

Here is the complaint in Shearwater v. Ashe (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are challenging a final nationwide regulation promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS” or “Service”) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI”) on December 9, 2013 that “extend[ed] the maximum term for programmatic permits” to kill or otherwise “take” bald and golden eagles from five years to thirty years. 78 Fed. Reg. 73704. This major rule change – the “thirty-year eagle take rule” – applies to industrial activities of all Case5:14-cv-02830 Document1 Filed06/19/14 Page1 of 23 kinds that incidentally take federally protected eagles in the course of otherwise lawful activities
but, as acknowledged by the Service, was promulgated specifically to respond to the wind power industry’s desire to facilitate the expansion of wind energy projects in areas occupied by eagles. Id. at 73709. However, the rule was adopted in flagrant violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370f (“NEPA”) because the Service did not prepare any document analyzing the environmental impacts of the rule change, as required by NEPA and its implementing regulations. In addition, the rule change violates the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d (“BGEPA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), because the rule subverts the basic eagle protection purposes of BGEPA and eliminates crucial procedural and other safeguards for eagle populations without any adequate explanation. Accordingly, the regulation should be vacated and remanded to Defendants for compliance with federal law.

 

Slate Interactive Map on the Loss of Indian Lands

Very interested, and sad.

Here.

Massachusetts High Court Puts State Gaming Ban Initiative on Ballot

Here is the opinion in Abdow v. Attorney General (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.).

We posted links to briefs here.

An excerpt:

The issue presented on appeal is whether an initiative petition meant to prohibit casino and slots gambling and abolish parimutuel wagering on simulcast greyhound races meets the requirements set forth in art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution and, therefore, may be considered by voters at the November Statewide election. The Attorney General concluded that it did not and, accordingly, declined to certify it for inclusion on the ballot. The plaintiffs, ten Massachusetts voters who submitted the proposed initiative for certification, filed a complaint challenging the Attorney General’s decision and sought an order requiring the Attorney General to certify the petition. We conclude that the Attorney General erred in declining to certify, and grant the requested relief so that the initiative may be decided by the voters at the November election.

Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority v. HUD

Here are materials in Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Colo.):

74 DCT Order on Liability

85 DCT Order on Damages

An excerpt:

On March 4, 2008, Plaintiff Tlingit–Haida Regional Housing Authority (“Tlingit–Haida” or “the Tribe”) filed this action for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., claiming that the Defendants (collectively “HUD”) violated the Native American Housing Assistance and Self–Determination Act of 1996 (“NAHASDA”), 25 U.S.C. § 4101 et seq., by reducing the number housing units counted as Formula Current Assisted Stock (“FCAS”) for the calculation of the Tribe’s share of the annual Indian Housing Block Grant (“IHBG”) and recapturing IHBG funds which the Tribe had received in past years for those units. Tlingit–Haida filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on June 17, 2010, requesting various and alternative forms of relief, including the disgorgement of recaptured funds.

***

FURTHER ORDERED that final judgment shall enter requiring the Defendants to restore to Plaintiff Tlingit–Haida Regional Housing Authority the amount of $1,139,658, for Indian Housing Block Grant funds that were illegally recaptured from the Plaintiff for fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Any such restoration shall be in addition to the full IHBG allocation that would otherwise be due to the Plaintiff under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self–Determination Act (“NAHASDA”) in a given fiscal year as calculated without application of the amount of the Judgment; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall make restoration of the IHBG funds from all available sources, including, but not limited to the funds set aside for Plaintiff’s benefit by stipulation of the parties on March 6, 2008 and ordered by this court in an Order entered on March 18, 2008 in the amount of $1,499,887[.]

California COA Rules in Favor of American Indian Model Schools in Oakland

Here is the opinion in American Indian Model Schools v. Oakland Unified School District (Cal. App.):

A139652

An excerpt:

The American Indian Model Schools (AIMS) operates three public charter schools in the City of Oakland (Oakland). The Oakland Unified School District (the District) decided to revoke AIMS’s three charters after an independent audit uncovered evidence of conflict of interest violations, fiscal mismanagement, and improper use of public funds at the three charter schools. Funding of the charter schools was to halt while AIMS appealed the revocation decision.

AIMS filed a writ petition in the superior court against the District and others (collectively, defendants),1 challenging the District’s revocation of its charters. AIMS also requested a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of the revocation order during the appeal process.
The trial court granted in part AIMS’s request for a preliminary injunction. The court highlighted the outstanding scholastic achievements of the students at AIMS’s three charter schools and the harm these students and schools would suffer if instruction were interrupted and the schools were no longer able to operate. The court concluded that the hardships weighed in favor of granting a preliminary injunction and that AIMS had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing at trial because the record did not contain substantial evidence that the District complied with the requirements under Education Code section 47607, subdivision (c)(2).2 The court issued a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending resolution of the appeal of the revocation decision.
Defendants appeal from the preliminary injunction order, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that AIMS is likely to prevail at trial. Defendants maintain that section 47607, subdivision (c)(2) requires the District to consider academic achievement but the trial court incorrectly interpreted this provision as requiring the District to make findings supported by substantial evidence that it complied with this provision. Defendants also challenge the trial court’s interpretation of section 47607, subdivision (i), and claim that issuing an injunction, which requires continued funding to the charter schools during the pendency of AIMS’s appeal, contravenes the mandate of section 47607, subdivision (i). Additionally, defendants maintain that the court failed to give sufficient deference to the District’s decision when it ruled AIMS was likely to prevail on the merits, that the court usurped the jurisdiction of the State Board of Education (the SBE), and that the court should not have issued any ruling in the absence of the California Department of Education (the CDE), which they maintain was an indispensable party.
We are not persuaded by defendants’ arguments and affirm the order granting the preliminary injunction.

NYTs on Patty Mills

Here is the New York Times’ excellent article, “Flying 3 Flags and Seeking One Banner: The Diverse Heritage of the San Antonio Spurs’ Patty Mills.”

AALS Indian Law Section Call for Papers

Call for Papers for the AALS Annual Meeting

Friday, January 2 – Monday, January 5, 2015, Washington DC

The AALS Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples Section invites submissions on the topic “Bay Mills and the Future of Sovereign Immunity” for the Section’s 2015 AALS conference panel. Please submit abstracts (preferred to received full papers) to the Section Chair, Alex Pearl, at alex.pearl@ttu.edu by August 1, 2014. We anticipate interpreting the topic broadly, so please submit if you are doing work related to this concept. The Section Executive Committee will inform you if you have been chosen to be on the panel by September 1, 2015 so that you will know in time for the Spring Law Review submission cycle.