Here.
Pokagon Band Buys Naming Rights to South Bend Minor League Baseball Stadium
Here.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Gingold and Pearl: Tribute to Eloise Cobell
Dennis M. Gingold and M. Alexander Lowther (Pearl) have published “A Tribute to Eloise Cobell” in the Public Land & Resources Law Review.
The abstract:
Cobell v. Salazar, the landmark class-action case, and its settlement arise out of a painful period in American history. For more than a century, the government’s abuse of individual Indian trust beneficiaries has been documented in various government reports and has been debated in Congress, but nothing that Congress did or said stopped egregious breaches of trust committed by the executive branch. The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted that “[t]he General Accounting Office, Interior Department Inspector General, and Office of Management and Budget, among others, have all condemned the mismanagement of the Individual Indian Money trust accounts over the past twenty years.” Indeed, the government exploited the Individual Indian Trust as if those funds were its own, wholly disregarding both its statutory and common law trust obligations and the needs and interests of hundreds of thousands of impoverished Indians.
No one did anything to stop that abuse until Elouise Cobell stood up and told the government, “no more.” This Article relates the actions in equity taken by Elouise Cobell to compel the United States to conduct a full historical accounting of all IIM Trust funds, to correct and restate IIM account balances, to fix broken Trust management systems, and to undertake other critical trust reform measures to ensure prudent Trust Management, and examines its remarkable achievements.
Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Cert Petition
Here is the cert petition in the case now captioned Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Grand Canyon Resort Development Corporation:
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
Questions presented:
1. Does Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) apply on tribal land, as this Court suggested in Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 358 (2001), or does this Court acquiesce in the Ninth Circuit’s contrary decision in Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area v. LaRance, 642 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2011)?
2. Does a non-tribal member consent to tribal jurisdiction under Montana even when that “consent” comes in the form of a contract with a tribal corporation which expressly provides that disputes will be resolved through binding arbitration, not in tribal court, and where the tribal enterprise has expressly waived its sovereign immunity to permit arbitration?
3. Are intangible contract rights of a Nevada corporation located on federal land held in trust for the Tribe and thus subject to the Tribe’s eminent domain powers because they relate to activities on tribal land?
4. Does the bad-faith exception to National Farmers exhaustion require a showing that the tribal court acted in bad faith, or is it sufficient to demonstrate that the Tribe’s governing council (Tribal Council) did so and that the Tribe’s judiciary lacked judicial independence?
Lower court materials here.
Jim Thorpe, PA Has “no intention of letting him go”
Here, via How Appealing.
Sanders on Genomic Research in Indian Country
Marren Sanders has posted “Genomic Research in Indian Country: The New Road to Termination?” on SSRN.
The abstract:
Genomic science has generated controversy in the social, legal, and ethical arenas for decades, and indigenous populations continue to be a subject of great interest in this area. This article looks at the recent concept of population genomics, a biotechnology used to help scientists understand how genetic variation relates to human health and evolutionary history. Parts II and III examine the debate among scientists as to the migration of the “first Americans” into North America, a debate that is quickly being influenced by the DNA markers found in the human genome. Part IV surveys the history of scientific research involving indigenous peoples – a history predominantly colored by ignorance and bias – as science was presented as conclusive proof of their savage nature and inferiority as a race. Scientists today proffer evidence that the ancestors of Native Americans were, in reality, colonists who immigrated from Africa, Europe, and/or Asia, and Part V analyzes a number of indicators that point to the possibility of genomic research providing justification for another termination of the special status and rights of Native Americans. Part VI looks at a number of tools that tribes may wish to consider using to help protect the genetic information of their members as they are faced with the seemingly endless need of researchers for Native American DNA. The article concludes that while suppositions of geneticists are in actuality just theories of historic migration, these theories have gained acceptance as fact in mainstream society. Given current indicators, Congress and/or the courts may very well use genomic science to justify another termination of the federal/tribal trust relationship.
Dreveskracht Commentary on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
Here. An excerpt:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is most certainly a blow to Indian sovereignty by way of an assault on core notions of Indian family and tribal identity. Yet what is even more disturbing is how the “Baby Veronica” ruling so vividly highlights the Roberts Court’s deep investment in white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy, heterosexism, and a coercive binary gender system. Adoptive Couple is about far more than the rights of adoptive parents. The decision should serve as a warning to all marginalized groups such as Indians, ethnic minorities, the lower class, or the LGBT community: If given the opportunity the High Court will construe legislation to serve its own institutionalized interests, in spite of the law’s intent.
N. Dakota SCT Rules in Favor of Tribal Jurisdiction in Utility Regulation Dispute
Here is the opinion in North Central Electrical Coop., Inc. v. North Dakota Public Service Commission.
An excerpt:
North Central Electric Cooperative appeals from a district court judgment affirming a Public Service Commission order dismissing North Central’s complaint against Otter Tail Power Company after the Commission decided it did not have regulatory authority over Otter Tail’s extension of electric service to a facility owned by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians on tribal trust land within the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. North Central argues (1) the Commission’s decision is not in accordance with the law because the Commission has jurisdiction under North Dakota law and (2) the Commission’s findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and do not sufficiently address North Central’s evidence. We affirm, concluding the Commission did not err in deciding it lacked authority to regulate the Tribe’s decision to have Otter Tail provide electric service to a tribal-owned facility on tribal-owned land within the reservation.
Briefs are here:
Submission to UN Human Rights Committee on Rights Abuses of American Indian Prisoners
Ninth Circuit Holds Interior Does Not Violate ISDEAA When Denying Law Enforcement Funds to PL280 Tribes
Here is the opinion in Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Capuño v. Jewell.
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians, and the court’s finding that the U.S. Secretary of the Interior violated the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection when the Secretary declined to enter into a self-determination contract with the Tribe to fund law enforcement on the Los Coyotes Reservation.
The panel held that the Secretary properly rejected the Tribe’s contract request. The panel also held that the Tribe’s reliance on the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act was misplaced because the Act allows the Tribe to take control of existing programs and obtain funds that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) would otherwise spend on those programs, but here there was no existing BIA program, and therefore nothing to transfer to the Tribe. The panel further held that the Administrative Procedure Act did not authorize the court to review the BIA’s allocation of law enforcement funding in Indian Country. Finally, the panel held that the BIA’s funding policy did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.
And the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
HuffPo on Gregg Deal’s “The Last American Indian on Earth”
Here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.