Here.
National NALSA Spring 2014 Newsletter
Here.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to 2009 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Election
Here are the materials in Ramos v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (D. Mass.):
An excerpt:
The Plaintiffs, enrolled members of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (“Tribe”), have sued the Defendants, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”); Michael Black, Director of the BIA; Mike Smith, Deputy Director; Franklin Keel, Regional Director; and Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary (collectively, the “Defendants”) seeking an injunction requiring the Defendants to conduct an investigation into the Tribe’s 2009 election and to take action to ensure that the Tribe’s elections are properly conducted. D. 9 at 10. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim and failure to join a necessary party. D. 10. Because the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the Court ALLOWS the motion to dismiss.
Shoni Schimmel Selected 8th Overall in WNBA Draft
Here.
Interior Secretary Jewell to Deliver Commencement Address at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
Secretary Jewell to Deliver Commencement Address at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
ALBUQUERQUE, NM – On Thursday, April 17, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell will address the 2014 graduating class of the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), a National Indian Community College and Land Grant Institution located in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
“We are honored to have Secretary Jewell join us for commencement, as we celebrate this important milestone in the lives of our students and their families,” said Dr. Sherry Allison, SIPI President.
SIPI, established in 1971, provides career technical training and transfer degree programs to students from the nation’s 566 federally recognized tribes.
WHO: Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior
WHAT: 2014 SIPI Commencement Address
WHERE: Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Gymnasium
9169 Coors Blvd., NW
Albuquerque, NM
WHEN: Thursday, April 17, 2014
10:00 a.m. MDT
MEDIA: Media wishing to attend are encouraged to RSVP here by 5:00 p.m. MDT on Wednesday, April 16.
Onondaga Nation Files Petition with Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
The Onondaga Nation Files Petition Against United States with Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Sovereign Nation in Upstate New York Seeks International Support After U.S. Courts Fail to Address Violations
Washington, DC – Today, the Onondaga Nation, a treaty-recognized sovereign Indian nation with its homelands in upstate New York, filed a petition against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Since 1788, 2.5 million acres of land have been stolen from the Onondaga Nation by New York State, and the failure of the U.S. court system has left the Nation with no choice but to seek assistance for human rights violations from the international community.
To bring attention to the filing, chiefs from the Onondaga Nation and supporters gathered at the Friends Meeting House in Washington, DC wearing traditional dress and with a historic wampum belt commissioned for the Nation by President George Washington to signify peace and friendship while ratifying the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua.
Click here to view photos of the Onondaga Nation’s demonstration outside the White House and the George Washington belt.
Click here to view the Onondaga Nation’s petition and annex to the petition as filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
“Our access to basic equality and justice was fundamentally denied by the United States’ courts,” said Tadodaho Sid Hill of the Onondaga Nation. “Now, we’re calling on the international community to help us reach a healing process following centuries of violations and broken promises.”
On March 11, 2005, the Nation filed a Land Rights Action in the United States District Court, which the federal court dismissed. The Nation then appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed that dismissal. Finally, the Nation filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking review of the dismissal and its affirmance. On October 15, 2013, the Supreme Court denied that petition. No further remedy is available in the United States court system.
“Where the U.S courts failed, the international community can help us preserve our role as an environmental steward of the land,” added Hill. “That means greater access to our surrounding lands and to cleansing the industrial pollution in Onondaga Lake, which remains a vital location to our nation’s spiritual life.”
The response from the U.S. courts bars the Nation from any domestic remedy and refuses it the chance to articulate the violations of New York State dating back to the late 18th Century. The federal courts’ inherently discriminatory ruling refused to consider the merits of the Nation’s case, holding that indigenous peoples’ claims for relief arising from violations of their land rights are “inherently disruptive” and, therefore, cannot be considered.
The Nation’s petition at the IACHR outlines the United States’ responsibility for violations of the Nation’s property rights, equality, judicial protection and due process – outlined in multiple domestic and international agreements, including multiple treaties, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
A positive result for the Onondaga Nation at the OAS could establish a framework to resolve the ongoing dispute and offer a case study for indigenous peoples barred access to justice by the U.S. court system.
The Onondaga Nation has never sold or otherwise relinquished its lands or its rights as a sovereign nation. Between 1788 and 1822 the State of New York took approximately 2.5 million acres of Onondaga Nation land, violating federal law, the Constitution and various treaties. Major land “acquisitions” by New York State in the 18th century were conducted with unauthorized individuals without the knowledge or consent of the authorized Onondaga chiefs. On multiple occasions, the State deceived the Onondagas into thinking the State was only leasing the land.
About The Onondaga Nation: The Onondaga Nation is one of the six nations of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. Onondaga Nation survives as a sovereign, independent nation, living on a portion of its ancestral territory and maintaining its own distinct government, laws, language, customs, and culture. Today, the Onondaga Nation consists of a 7,300-acre territory just south of Syracuse, NY. For more information visit http://www.onondaganation.org/land-rights/onondaga-nation-files-suit-in-world-court/
# # #
Student Commentary on Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community
Here, in the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar. Titled A Tradition of Sovereignty: Examining Tribal Sovereign Immunity in Bay Mills Indian Community v. Michigan, written by Meredith L. Jewitt.
Tenth Circuit Affirms Murder Conviction Arising on San Ildefonso Pueblo
Here is the opinion in United States v. Romero.
Woolman and Deer on a Feminist Lawyering Approach to Protecting Native Mothers and Their Children
Joanna Woolman and Sarah Deer have published “Protecting Native Mothers and Their Children: A Feminist Lawyering Approach” in the William Mitchell Law Review.
From the introduction:
A mother killing her child is a shocking event. In the United States, our child protection system seeks to prevent this type of horror, along with countless other acts that harm children. Despite having a system designed to protect children from harm, hundreds of children are killed by their mothers each year. Each death represents a failure of our systems and communities, and individuals within both, to protect children. The typical response to filicide tends to focus on the actions of the individual mother rather than the failures of the system. Our current criminal justice system often deals with these cases and mothers harshly, not taking into account the unique, gendered circumstances that lead a mother to this desperate act. Society is quick to place blame on the archetype of a selfish, unfeeling mother who kills a child because she feels inconvenienced by motherhood. Neonaticide, a subcategory of filicide, is particularly fraught with extremely negative life circumstances, including mental illness, substance abuse, and trauma. These circumstances, in many cases, could be recognized and remedied with the right intervention. We believe that holistic, feminist legal representation could achieve this
intervention in some cases, possibly preventing the extreme, tragic outcome of the death of a child.
Rothstein Law Firm Associate Posting
Indian Law Associate – Tempe, Arizona
The Rothstein Law Firm is accepting applications for an Indian law associate position in its Tempe, Arizona office. The position is for an attorney with a minimum of 2 years of Indian law or general legal experience. Candidates should possess excellent oral and written communication skills. The Rothstein Law Firm, with offices in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, NM and Tempe, AZ, focuses its practice on federal Indian law, civil rights, white collar criminal defense, and personal injury. Please send a cover letter, writing samples and resume to The Rothstein Law Firm, Attn: Firm Administrator, P.O. Box 8180, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87504-8180. E-mail responses may be submitted to info@rothsteinlaw.com.
Alaska SCT Refuses to Take Jurisdiction over Internal Tribal Governance Matter
Here is the opinion in Healy Lake Village v. Mt. McKinley Bank. An excerot:
Members of Healy Lake Village Tribe who claim to constitute the newly elected tribal council brought suit in superior court against Mt. McKinley Bank after the Bank refused to change the signatory authority on the Tribe’s accounts to reflect the alleged leadership change. A second group of tribal members, who also claim to represent the Tribe based on a competing election, was granted intervention in order to contest the superior court’s jurisdiction. The superior court determined that the fundamental issue in the case was the determination of the legitimate governing body of the Tribe, which was an internal self-governance matter within the Tribe’s retained inherent sovereignty. The superior court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the group that brought the initial action now appeals. Because determining the real party in interest would have required the superior court to decide matters solely within the Tribe’s retained inherent sovereignty, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.