Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Suit against Lac Vieux Desert Band over Tribal Payday Lending

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Decker v. RS Financial Services LLC (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

1. This is a lawsuit to recover damages arising from the Defendants’ unconscionable loan/pawn finance charges, which are far in excess of any state’s usury limits.

2. Upon information and belief, RS Financial Services, LLC (“RS Financial”) and Sovereign Lending Solutions, LLC (“Sovereign”) are related entities owned and controlled by Defendant William McKibbin (“McKibbin”), and are in the business of making loans at usurious interest rates.
3. Sovereign claims to be an arm of and affiliated with Defendant Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (“Lac Vieux Tribe”), and to be afforded governmental sovereign immunity.

4. Upon information and belief, the Lac Vieux Tribe receives a fee for allowing Sovereign to claim this affiliation. However, even if the affiliation between Sovereign and the Lac Vieux Tribe was otherwise valid, the conduct alleged in this Complaint is not protected by governmental sovereign immunity.

Moapa Band Complaint re: Alleged Gaming Management Contract

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Moapa Band of Paiute Indians v. Herbst Moapa Development LLC (D. Nev.):

1 Complaint

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Affirms Federal Tongass Roadless Rule

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Organized Village of Kake v. Dept. of Agriculture.

An excerpt:

The panel reversed the district court’s order, which invalidated a 2003 United States Department of Agriculture regulation temporarily exempting the Tongass National
Forest in Alaska from application of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

The panel held that in its 2003 Record of Decision, the Department of Agriculture articulated a number of legitimate grounds for temporarily exempting the Tongass Forest from the 2001 Roadless Rule. The panel concluded that these grounds and the Department of Agriculture’s reasoning in reaching its decision were neither arbitrary nor capricious. The panel remanded to the district court to decide whether a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is required in the first instance.

Judge McKeown dissented, and would affirm the district court’s decision because the  administrative record does not support the USDA’s decision in 2003 to discard its previous position and temporarily exempt the Tongass from the Roadless Rule.

Briefs:

Alaska Opening Brief

Amicus Brief Supporting Appellant

Tribal and Environmental Brief

Alaska Reply

D.C. Circuit Briefs in Amador County v. Dept. of Interior (Amador II) — Buena Vista Rancheria Motion to Intervene

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Buena Vista Opening Brief

Amador County Brief

Buena Vista Reply Brief

DOI Letter

UPDATE: oral argument audio here.

Lower court materials:

59-1 Buena Vista Rancheria Motion to Intervene

61 Amador County Opposition

62 Buena Vista Reply

65 DCT Order Denying Motion to Intervene

Materials in related cases:

Materials in Amador I.

Materials in Friends of Amador County v. Jewell.

Indian Law Panel at Yale Critical Race Theory Conference

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Equality vs. Exceptionalism: The Role of Race in Federal Indian Law

Saturday, April 5, 5:15-6:45 PM

Yale Law School, 127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT

Race has played a profound and complicated role in the United States’ legal and political treatment of Indians. On the one hand, the federal government has used American racial ideology and taxonomy to strip tribes of autonomy, resources, and humanity. On the other hand, the courts and Congress have also problematically conflated race and political status as a way of understanding and regulating tribes as political entities. This panel will explore how this unique history interacts with recent equal protection jurisprudence and has impacted the political position of tribes and Native people. How will the increasing illegitimacy of governmental racial classifications affect laws designed to preserve and advance tribal self-government and cultural survival? How can the tension between formal equality and the distinct status of Indian tribes be reconciled to secure Native rights and justice?

Panelists:

Kristen Carpenter, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, American Indian Law Program, University of Colorado Law School

Matthew Fletcher, Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law

Wenona Singel, Associate Professor of Law & Associate Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law

Angela R. Riley, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; Director, UCLA American Indian Studies Center; and Co-Director, Native Nations Law and Policy Center

Gerald Torres, Bryant Smith Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law

Registration: http://www.law.yale.edu/news/crt2014_register.htm

This panel is part of Yale Law School’s 2014 Critical Race Theory Conference. To learn more about the conference, please visit: http://www.law.yale.edu/news/crt2014.htm

Yale CRT

Slate on Dan Snyder

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

I wonder … So many news organizations will no longer print the Washington Football Team’s nickname, but Snyder won’t budge. What if those news organizations stopped printing Snyder’s name?

Profile on Florida Seminole and Miccosukee Indians: “Voice of the Everglades”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Photos here.

News article here.

Caddo Nation Leadership Dispute in Federal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Caddo Nation of Oklahoma v. Court of Indian Offenses for the Anadarko Agency (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

1-7 Petn for Emergency TRO

1-8 CIO Emergency TRO

2 Plaintiff Motion for TRO

8 Plaintiff Supplemental Brief

9 DCT Order

Federal Court Holds Tribe May Prosecute Disenrollee

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians v. Phebus (D. Nev.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Tribal Court of Appeals Opinion

8 Motion for Declaratory Judgment

10 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Court DECLARES that the Tribe may assert criminal jurisdiction over any person qualifying as an Indian under the ICRA, as interpreted in cases such as United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005), but in such a prosecution the Tribe must prove Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt, and the Tribal Court must submit the question to a jury where the crime is punishable by imprisonment, unless the jury right is properly waived, and there is no evidence that these procedures were followed as to Phebus in the cases cited. Furthermore, if the Tribe seeks to prosecute a non-member whose membership it has revoked or rejected, the Indian status analysis in such a prosecution may not rely upon political affiliation with the Tribe, but only upon actual or de facto membership in another tribe.