Payment of Contract Support Costs is Mandatory – Why Isn’t the Funding?

Attorneys from Hobbs Strauss have prepared a proposal to enact permanent mandatory funding appropriations for contract support costs under the ISDEAA. The proposal is here:

White Paper and Proposal – Final

They also have an editorial in the ICT on this matter.

Alaska AG Withdraws 2004 AG Opinion on Tribal Court Jurisdiction that Conflicted with Alaska SCT Precedent

Here is the letter withdrawing “Jurisdiction of State and Tribal Courts in Child Protection Matters,” 2004 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 1:

2014-001_APR2014

The 2004 opinion is here (PDF).

The relevant Alaska precedent — State v. Native Village of Tanana, 249 P.3d 734 — is here:

State v. Native Village of Tanana

American Bird Conservancy Plans to Sue Interior over 30-Year Eagle Kill Rule

Here.

An excerpt:

A leading bird conservation organization—American Bird Conservancy (ABC)—has announced its intention to sue the Department of the Interior (DOI), charging DOI with multiple violations of federal law in connection with its December 9, 2013, final regulation that allows wind energy companies and others to obtain 30-year permits to kill eagles without prosecution by the federal government. The previous rule provided for a maximum duration of five years for each permit.

Notice of Intent to Sue (PDF)

Federal Judge Orders South Dakota Judges to Comply with Subpoenas in ICWA Class Action

Here are the newest materials in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik (D.S.D.):

We posted the motion to compel and the order to show case here.

87-1 Plaintiffs Exhibits

88 Judge Davis Response

89 Non-Party State Judges Response

90 Plaintiffs Reply

95 DCT Order Granting Motion to Compel

Prior posts here (denial of motions to dismiss), and complaint here.

IPR: Fletcher Waits for Bay Mills

Here.

Nothing that you didn’t already know from Kate’s post Tuesday.

An excerpt:

He says the result could be that tribes think twice about investing money off the reservation.

“You can’t put it in your mattress,” he says. “But perhaps into overseas banks or something to that effect.”

Fletcher says it’s just one possible outcome. The court could also write a more limited decision. Fletcher says the least-likely outcome would be for the court to rule in favor of the Bay Mills Indian Community, which argues it is immune from lawsuit in this instance.

Arizona COA Holds Tribally-Licensed Attorney May Not Practice Law Off Reservation without State License

Here is the opinion in State Bar of Arizona v. Lang (Ariz. App.):

State Bar of Arizona v Lang

An excerpt:

Randy D. Lang, a nonmember of the State Bar of Arizona, was enjoined from practicing law in Arizona based on evidence that he repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. We hold that a person who presents himself as an attorney based in an Arizona office engages in the unauthorized practice of law unless he has been admitted to practice before the Arizona Supreme Court, even if he has been admitted to practice in a tribal court within the boundaries of Arizona. The supreme court rules that compel this conclusion violate neither the First Amendment nor principles of tribal sovereignty. We further conclude that the superior court properly granted the State Bar of Arizona’s motion for summary judgment, and that the injunction is reasonable in its scope. We therefore affirm.

WSJ Coverage of Tribal Negotiations with Utilities re: Rights-of-Way

From WSJ: “Indian Tribes’ New Negotiating Power Costs Utilities.”

Jessica Shoemaker on the Indian Land Tenure Problem

Jessica Shoemaker has posted “No Sticks in My Bundle: Rethinking the Indian Land Tenure Problem,” forthcoming in the Kansas Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

This article analyzes the modern rule that individual Indian co-owners of allotted land retain no direct rights to use and possess their own property without a lease or other prior permission from their co-owners. This special Indian no-use and no-possession rule is of a relatively recent vintage, and it is contrary to the rights of co-owners in nearly every non-Indian jurisdiction. This rule is also ahistorical and contrary to current federal policy to promote Indian use of Indian land. While other scholarship on Indian land tenure has focused on the practical challenges of coordinating among so many co-owners in Indian lands’ fractionated state and on the limits imposed by the federal trust status’s alienation restraints on these lands, this article argues that the lack of legal possession and use rights for Indian co-owners is a third and previously overlooked factor in the problem of Indian self-determination. This article ultimately concludes that the federal co-ownership rules for individual Indian lands are poorly designed and are exacerbating other land tenure and social and economic problems in Indian Country. This article ultimately proposes tribally driven solutions to create a more rational and culturally congruent property system for indigenous people.

Opening Federal Circuit Brief in Shinnecock Nation v. United States

Here:

Shinnecock Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

Ann Tweedy Reviews Paper on Oral History by Hershey, McCormack, and Newell

“Oral History and Perceptions of Subjectivity,” from Jotwell.

The Hersey et al. paper, Mapping Intergenerational Memories (Part I): Proving the Contemporary Truth of the Indigenous Past, is here.