Lummi Tribe Prevails in Indian Child Welfare Matter involving Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Here are the materials in Jones v. Lummi Tribal Court (W.D. Wash.):

48 Jones Motion

55 Lummi Response

57 Jones Reply

60 DCT Opinion and Order

61 DCT Order Dismssing Complaint

Prior orders in this case are here and here.

California Law Review Comment on Duroville Receivership

Ziwei Hu has published “Equity’s New Frontier: Receiverships in Indian Country” in the California Law Review.

The abstract:

Southern California’s Coachella Valley is one of the poorest regions in the country. Its location in Riverside County-which is within close proximity to some of the nation’s wealthiest citizens and also the U.S.-Mexico border-along with the county’s dependence onthe agriculture industry has contributed to a significant demand for low-wage farm workers, who often have a mix of immigration statuses. Historical, political, and socioeconomic factors have compounded to limit affordable housing options in the Coachella Valley for these farm workers and have generated the proliferation of illegal trailer parks with egregious habitability concerns on the vast swathes of Indian country throughout the county. Tribal sovereignty renders these parks beyond the reach of prophylactic state and local laws that would otherwise protect the health, safety, and welfare of the parks’ residents. Consequently, these parks are subject only to the jurisdiction of federal courts. In United States v. Duro, a federal judge appointed a receiver to oversee urgent infrastructure improvements in Duroville, one of the largest parks. Receivership is arguably the strongest and most invasive articulation of a court’s equitable powers because it strips a party of his property rights and vests control of the property in question to a third party that is accountable only to the court. The court’s action in appointing a receiver was a key factor in the provision of a safe relocation site for Duroville’s residents, which required a concerted effort by the County, the State, and a private housing developer. This Comment explores the implications that this groundbreaking case has for other trailer parks on Indian country in the Coachella Valley. Ultimately, it concludes that the Duroville receivership was a necessary and legitimate extension of the court’s equitable powers and that receivership can be an effective means both to remedy urgent habitability problems in other trailer parks on Indian land and to spur local government actors to work towards providing decent, safe, and affordable housing alternatives for residents of these parks.

We posted on United States v. Duro here.

Two Important ICT Commentaries on Michigan v. Bay Mills

The first commentary is from Native Nations Institute commentators Ryan Seelau and Dr. Ian Record:

Will the Supreme Court Use Bay Mills Case to Blow Up Tribal Sovereignty?

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/11/05/sovereign-immunity-and-bay-mills-case-how-tribes-can-prepare

 

The second commentary is from Gabriel Galanda and Ryan Dreveskracht of Galanda Broadman:

The Bay Mills Buck Stops With NIGC

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/11/06/bay-mills-buck-stops-nigc

Oklahoma SCT Decides Case in Favor of Indian Football Players at Sequoyah High School in Talequah

Here is the opinion in Scott v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Assn.:

2013-10-01 OSSAA Opinion

A summary of the case by Chad Smith, who represented the players:

The OSSAA suspended 12 students at Sequoyah High School in Tahlequah and did not let compete in the state football championships.  Sequoyah is an Indian boarding school run by the Cherokee Nation.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court found the OSSAA was arbitrary and capacious and reversed the District Court.

National Judicial College Seeks Tribal Program Attorney

Here.

Univ. of Oregon: Alternative Sovereignties CFP — Dec. 1 Deadline

Here:

Alternative Sovereignties_CallforPapers

Conference website here.

Nevada Legal Services Exec. Director Job Posting

Here:

Executive Director Job Announcement

Legal Services Corp. Proposed Rule on Restrictions on Criminal Representation

Here. Comment period expires Dec. 4, 2013.

The summary:

This proposed rule updates the Legal Services Corporation (LSC 
or Corporation) regulation on legal assistance with respect to criminal 
proceedings. The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA) amended the 
LSC Act to authorize LSC funds to be used for representation of persons 
charged with criminal offenses in tribal courts. This proposed rule 
will bring the regulations into alignment with the amended LSC Act. The 
proposed rule will also revise the conditions under which LSC 
recipients can accept or decline tribal court appointments to represent 
defendants in criminal proceedings.

WaPo: D.C. Council Calls Out Washington Football Team Nickname

Here.

An excerpt:

“Enough is enough — the name must go,” said David Grosso (I-At Large), who first introduced the name-change resolution in May.

The version of the “Sense of the Council to Rename the Washington National Football League Team Resolution of 2013” approved by the council was worded less strongly than the original, which called the team name “insulting and debasing.” But Grosso pulled few punches in comments on the council dais.

The notion that the “Redskins” name should be kept as a symbol of the team’s heritage, he said, “is akin to saying to the Native American people . . . your pain has less worth than our football memories.”

David Grosso is a hero to Turtle Talk.

Little Traverse Bay Bands Seeks Court Administrator

JD preferred:

Court Administrator revised 11-4-13