Colette Routel on Bounties on Dakota Men During the US-Dakota War

Highly recommended paper.

Colette Routel has posted “Minnesota Bounties on Dakota Men During the US-Dakota War” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The U.S.-Dakota War was one of the formative events in Minnesota history, and despite the passage of time, it still stirs up powerful emotions among descendants of the Dakota and white settlers who experienced this tragedy. Hundreds of people lost their lives in just over a month of fighting in 1862. By the time the year was over, thirty-eight Dakota men had been hanged in the largest mass execution in United States history. Not long afterwards, the United States abrogated its treaties with the Dakota, confiscated their reservations along the Minnesota River, and forced most of the Dakota to remove westward.

While dozens of books and articles have been written about these events, scholars have largely ignored an important legal development that occurred in Minnesota during the following summer. The Minnesota Adjutant General, at the direction of Minnesota Governors Alexander Ramsey and Henry Swift, issued a series of orders offering rewards for the killing of Dakota men found within the State. The first order authorized the creation of a corps of volunteer scouts that would scour the “Big Woods” in search of Dakota men. They were to be paid not only a daily wage, but an additional $25 for each scalp they were able to provide the Adjutant General’s Office. Subsequent orders permitted individual citizens who were not part of the volunteer corps to claim up to $200 for proof that they had killed a Dakota. These bounty orders remained in effect until at least 1868, when their constitutionality was finally questioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Gut.

Minnesota was not the only state that placed a bounty on their Indian inhabitants. Around the same time, a bounty system was enacted by the Territory of Arizona, and one was also implemented by private citizens and local governments within the State of California. Like the bounty system in Minnesota, these programs were creatures of state and territorial law, but they were implicitly and explicitly approved by the federal government. In fact, they could be viewed as part of a much broader extermination program that was at the heart of federal Indian policy during this time period.

This article uses primary historical sources to describe the events leading up to the enactment of a bounty system in Minnesota, its creation, and subsequent on-the-ground implementation. In an attempt to avoid the pitfalls of “presentism,” the legality of this bounty system is analyzed according to the laws in effect in 1863, when it was created. This article concludes that the Minnesota bounty system was illegal from its inception, as it was contrary not only the international law of war, but also the Lieber Code, which was issued by the U.S. Secretary of War in April 1863, and used to govern the conduct of Union soldiers during the ongoing Civil War.

Little River Band Ottawa Signs Two More Collective Bargaining Agreements with Unions

For Immediate Release

(October 6, 2013) Manistee, MI ​

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
COMPLETED UNDER TRIBAL LAW

Deepening a five year relationship under the labor law of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, the United Steelworkers Union and the Manistee, Michigan-based Little River Casino Resort have completed two new collective bargaining agreements. The contracts, which cover employees within the Resort’s security and slot tech departments, were ratified late last week by the USW.

“As far as we are aware, no other Indian tribe in the country has as many collective bargaining agreements entered into pursuant to tribal law,” said Wendell Long, the General Manager for the Resort, and a member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. “This exemplifies tribal sovereignty at work,” said Virgil Johnson, the elected Speaker of the Band’s Tribal Council, which is responsible for enacting the Band’s laws. “We are very proud of our success,” he said.

In 2007, the Band enacted its Labor Organizations and Collective Bargaining Law to cover employees within its public sector operations, including the Little River Casino Resort. The Band conducts gaming as a substitute for a tax base to generate revenue to support governmental services it provides to its members under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Band’s gaming revenues from the Resort provide the bulk of funds for its health programs, police department, and court system, as well as many other governmental programs.

The Band’s labor law establishes a structure for union elections, bargaining rules, and the resolution of unfair labor practice charges. “We found much to learn from the way state governments regulate collective bargaining,” said Speaker Johnson, “but in the end, this law reflects the unique values of our Ottawa community.”

The Resort and the USW have engaged in bargaining unit elections and collective bargaining over employment terms and conditions affecting more than 100 employees at the Resort. The first agreement was signed in December, 2010 and two others followed by October of 2012. According to Bill Laney, USW Staff Representative: “The USW and the Resort have developed a good working relationship and the successful outcome of these negotiations is proof that the Tribe’s collective bargaining law is now working. It gives employees a voice in determining their wages, hours and working conditions and the ratification of these two contracts shows that unit members are satisfied with the results.”

Ogema Larry Romanelli, the Band’s executive branch leader, has monitored management-union relations at the Band. “A lot of hard work and long hours have gone into the negotiation of these collective bargaining agreements,” he said. “They reflect the good faith of union and management, alike.”

Oral argument is scheduled before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Tuesday, October 8th in a case in which the National Labor Relations Board has challenged the authority of the Band to apply its labor law at the Resort.

For information on the Little River Band’s labor and employment laws, contact the Office of Public Affairs for the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians at 2608 Government Center Drive, Manistee, MI 49660. Office phone 231.723.8288. E-mail to gzaring@lrboi.com

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Indian Preference in Employment at Office of Special Trustee

Here are the materials in Hester v. Salazar (D. Utah):

3 Hester Complaint

7 MJ R&R

8 Hester Objection

9 DCT Order Adopting R&R

An excerpt from the R&R:

Because the Supreme Court has ruled in Mancari that Indian preference “does not constitute ‘racial discrimination,’ “ Mancari, 471 U.S. at 553, Mr. Hester’s claims that he was subjected to racial discrimination and that his civil rights have been violated are not valid. Therefore, because Mr. Hester has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, and it would be futile to amend his complaint, his complaint should be dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Based on that conclusion, Mr. Hester’s motion to appoint counsel and motion for service of process should be deemed moot.

Choctaw Nation v. Sebelius Amended Complaint

Here:

13 1476 Docket 4 2013 09 30 Choctaw First Amended Complaint

Split Fifth Circuit Panel Affirms Tribal Civil Jurisdiction over Nonmember in Dolgencorp v. Miss. Choctaw

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General Corp. (collectively “Dolgencorp”) brought an action in the district court seeking to enjoin John Doe, a member of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and other defendants (collectively “the tribal defendants”) from adjudicating tort claims against Dolgencorp in the Choctaw tribal court. The district court denied Dolgencorp’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the tribal defendants, concluding that the tribal court may properly exercise jurisdiction over Doe’s claims. Because we agree that Dolgencorp’s consensual relationship with Doe  gives rise to tribal court jurisdiction over Doe’s claims under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564-66 (1981), we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

Briefs are here.

Lower court decision and materials here.

 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Denies Petition by Tribal Payday Lenders to Set Aside Investigative Demands

Here:

201309_cfpb_decision-on-petition_great-plains-lending-to-set-aside-civil-investigative-demands

Thanks to S.D. More material here.

Federal Dismisses Robison Rancheria Disenrollee Complaint without Prejudice

Here is the order in Harrison v. Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Business Council (N.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint wo Prejudice

Briefs are here.

Complaint is here.

Update in Federal Trade Commission v. Payday Financial (Martin Webb) — Defendants Ordered to Pay FTC More than $400K

Here are the new materials in Federal Trade Commission v. Payday Financial LLC (D. S.D.):

52 PF Motion for Summary J

58 FTC Response

60 PF Reply

94 FTC Motion for Summary J

103 PF Opposition

114 FTC Reply

117 DCT Order Denying PF Motion for Summary J

120 FTC Memorandum of Supplemental Authority

120-1 Exhibit A

120-3 Exhibit C

131 DCT Order Granting Partial Summary J to FTC

Materials from the complaint here.

Federal Court Holds Sisseton Housing Authority is Tribal Organization for Purposes of 18 USC § 1163

Here are the materials in United States v. Red Thunder (D. S.D.):

51 White Motion to Dismiss

53 Red Owl Motion to Dismiss

54 DuMarce Motion to Dismiss

56 Red Thunder Motion to Dismiss

57 Government’s Response

61 MJ R&R Denying Motion to Dismiss

98 DCT Order Adopting R&R

Swinomish Prevails in Washington COA Challenge to State Dept. of Ecology in Matter Affecting Treaty Rights

Here is the opinion in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Washington Dept. of Ecology (PDF).

An excerpt:

This case involves the validity of an amended rule from the Department of Ecology (Ecology) that reserves water from the Skagit River system for future year-round out-of-stream uses, despite the fact that in times of low stream flows these uses will impair established minimum instream flows necessary for fish, wildlife, recreation, navigation, scenic and aesthetic values. Ecology relies on RCW 90.54.020(3)(a) for authority to make the reservations of water despite the existing minimum flows. This statutory provision allows impairment of stream base flows when overriding considerations of public interest are served. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (Tribe) petitioned for review in superior court, challenging the validity of Ecology’s amended rule reserving the water.

Available briefs here: