Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

An excerpt:

Carole Goldberg, a professor and vice chancellor at UCLA’s School of Law who has dealt extensively with Native American legal rights, said discrimination is widespread in many states with Native populations.

“There are persistent patterns where states have criminal jurisdiction on reservations and the counties that exercise this jurisdiction locate their facilities and services in a place convenient for the non-Native population and not the Native populations,” said Goldberg, who has donated to multiple Democratic candidates.

Continue reading →

MOU between USDOJ Civil Rights Division Indian Working Group and Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission

July 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

IWG.MOU.FINAL.SIGNED.07.15.13

DOJ press release:

WASHINGTON – Today marked the establishment of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission and the Civil Rights Division’s Indian Working Group (IWG). The MOU will establish a communication process that will ensure that civil rights violations are brought to the IWG when the civil rights of a member of the Navajo Nation is violated.

The commission was established as an entity of the Navajo Nation government to operate as a clearinghouse entity to address discriminatory actions against citizens of the Navajo Nation. The commission works to ensure that Navajo citizens are free from discrimination and are free to enjoy basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. The commission is authorized to receive reports of discriminatory and racially motivated acts perpetrated against citizens of the Navajo Nation and refer such incidents to the proper authorities.

            The IWG is a part of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and is comprised of members from throughout the Civil Rights Division. The mission and purpose of the IWG is to assist the Civil Rights Division in its law enforcement duties and responsibilities toward Native Americans. The IWG works to identify issues that affect Native Americans and to refer, coordinate, support and monitor enforcement and outreach activities involving Native Americans.

The MOU evolved from discussions on May 25, 2012 between the commission, Albert Sanchez, Program Analyst for the New Mexico Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (NMEEOC), and Albert Baltazar, Special Counsel of the Civil Rights Division regarding civil rights violations in border towns surrounding the Navajo Nation.

            The MOU promotes and encourages enforcement of federal civil rights laws by increasing communication between the Commission and IWG. The MOU outlines procedures and provides guidance to the Commission and IWG in sharing information about civil rights issues affecting citizens of the Navajo Nation.

            “This MOU will assist the Commission by streamlining and expediting information between agencies to resolve civil rights violations that are not afforded the same investigative measures that non-indigenous victims receive. This MOU will be that stepping stone toward resolving issues that this Commission has had difficulty with pursuing in the border towns surrounding the Navajo Nation” said Commissioner Darden, chairperson of the Commission.

            “This MOU between the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission and the Indian Working Group establishes a strong mechanism to assist the Civil Rights Division to address civil rights issues involving citizens of the Navajo Nation, “ said Eve Hill, Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. “For far too long Native Americans have experienced discrimination and injustice, and the federal government can and must stop such discrimination.”

            “With the MOU approved by both the Navajo Nation and U.S. civil rights office, the Navajo Human Rights Office now looks forward to working on common strategy to address race discrimination against Navajo citizens,” said Leonard Gorman, Executive Director of the Office of Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission.

Federal Court Class Action Complaint Filed against Payday Financial/Western Sky/Butch Webb

July 16, 2013July 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in Heldt v. Payday Financial LLC (D. S.D.):

Heldt Complaint

News coverage here.

Tonasket v. Sargent Cert Stage Reply Brief

July 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Tonasket v Sargent Cert Stage Reply

Prisoner Challenge to Major Crimes Act under 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie Fails

July 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

DCT Order

Fay Rule 60 Motion

Sixth Circuit Judge Martin to Retire

July 15, 2013July 15, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, hat tip to How Appealing.

NPR Profile on Judge Lamberth

July 15, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Second Circuit Holds Town of Ledyard May Tax Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Machines

July 15, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the materials in Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard:

CA2 Opinion

Town of Ledyard Opening Brief

Intervenor Connecticut Brief

MPN Answer Brief

Connecticut Reply

Town of Ledyard Reply

Lower court materials here.

New Scholarship on San Carlos Apache Water Rights

July 15, 2013July 15, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Daniel Lee has published his note, “Statutes of Ill Repose and Threshold Canons of Construction: A Unified Approach to Ambiguity After San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States” in the Seattle University Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

Historically, the San Carlos Apache Tribe depended on the Gila River to irrigate crops and sustain a population of around 14,000 tribe members. The river is also sacred to the Tribe and central to the Tribe’s culture and spirituality. Initially, the federal government had recognized the Tribe’s dependence on the Gila River by reserving, under the Winters doctrine, water rights necessary to support the San Carlos Apache Reservation. Acting as the Tribe’s trustee, the United States entered into the Globe Equity Decree (the Decree), which prevented the San Carlos Apache Tribe from claiming water rights under the Winters doctrine and awarded significant water rights to private parties and other Indian tribes. In particular, this Note focuses on the Federal Circuit’s decision in 2011 that the San Carlos Apache Tribe could not seek damages against the United States for improperly diminishing the Tribe’s reserved water rights to the Gila River under the Decree because the court determined that the statute of limitations had run. This Note argues that the case was wrongly decided. It then proposes two new analytical devices to overcome the recent trend of courts denying remedies to tribes based on supposedly unambiguous language of treaties, statutes, and decrees.