Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher – Page 706

The panel dismissed a petition for review of a decision of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to withhold overpayments made to the Fort Belknap Housing Department under the federal rent-subsidy program for Indian Tribes and Tribal Designated Housing Entities.

The panel held that because the Department of Housing and Urban Development had taken no “action” pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 4161(a), it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The panel held it lacked jurisdiction because HUD neither alleged nor found that Fort Belknap failed to comply substantially with the provisions of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996; and because HUD did not impose the remedies listed in 25 U.S.C. § 4161(a)(1). The panel dismissed Fort Belknap’s petition without reaching the merits.

And:

At oral argument, HUD’s counsel suggested that Fort Belknap could raise its claims in the appropriate district court. We do not decide whether any other court has jurisdiction, as that issue is not before us, but we note that our holding does not necessarily mean Fort Belknap is without judicial recourse.

Summary Judgment Motions in Mishewal Wappo Tribe Federal Recognition/Termination/Trust Breach Case

August 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley v. Jewell (N.D. Cal.):

Interior Motion for Summary J

Mishewal Wappo Motion for Summary J

Interior Opposition

Mishewal Wappo Opposition

Interior Reply

Mishewal Wappo Reply

Update in Nooksack Disenrollment Matter — Second Amended Complaint Dismissed

August 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are additional materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Kelly Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Nooksack Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Kelly Defendants’ Reply on Motion to Dismiss

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint 8-6-2013

An excerpt:

As Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn wrote recently, “in the exercise of sovereignty and self-governance, tribes have the right, like other governments, to make good decisions, bad decisions, and decisions with which others may not agree.” Aguayo, page 1. The Tribal Council members named in this Complaint hold an obligation to act in the best interests of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. Membership and enrollment decisions impact individual lives in the deepest possible ways and those decisions cannot be taken lightly. This Court recognizes the serious implications of this case and its decision on this motion and all the others that have preceded it. It is the solemn obligation of this Court to follow the law of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and it is the obligation of the Tribal Council to do the same.

S.C. Family Court Cancels Transition Plan and Orders Immediate Custody Transfer of Baby Veronica

August 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

South Carolina Family Court Enforcement Order

H/t SCOTUSblog.

We’re a little late to the show on this one. Two days old now….

Matheson v. Washington Dept. of Revenue Cert Petition

August 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

Here:

Matheson v Washington Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Did the state courts below err in entering a state excise tax and penalty judgment against a tribal Indian who is exempt from state taxes and who also had a state tobacco license to transport cigarettes free of state tax stamps?

2. Is a tribal Indian, whose only activity was to transport cargo in round trips to Indian reservations, exempt from state taxes under the Indian and interstate commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution?

For the life of me, I can’t find the Washington Court of Appeals materials in this matter. Weird….