Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher – Page 720

The American Indian Law Journal, published by the Seattle University School of Law, is currently accepting submissions for potential publication in the fall and spring issues. The American Indian Law Journal serves as a vital online resource providing high quality articles on issues relevant to Indian law practitioners and scholars across the country. The deadline for submissions for the fall issue is Wednesday September 4, 2013. Our staff begins the editing process in mid-September, with publication occurring just after Thanksgiving. Articles considered for publication in the spring issue must be submitted no later than Wednesday February 5, 2014.

The American Indian Law Journal accepts articles and abstracts for consideration from students, practitioners, and law school faculty members. For more information or to submit an article, please contact MJ McCallum, Content Editor, at mccallu5@seattleu.edu. Past issues of the American Indian Law Journal are available at:

Spring Issue Volume I Issue II

Fall Issue Volume I Issue I

We look forward to your submissions.

The American Indian Law Journal Editorial Board.

Minnesota COA Decision Critical of Minn. SCT Precedent on Indian Country Jurisdiction, But Complies

July 9, 2013July 9, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in State v. Saros:

SAROS JAY CT APP DECISION 7.13

The issue involves state civil regulatory jurisdiction (in this case, traffic offenses) over on-reservation Indians who are members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe where a member of one band (say White Earth) is cited on the reservation of another band (say Leech Lake). The Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Davis held that the White Earth member may be civilly cited by the state because he/she is not on his/her own reservation.

The Saros court writes:

We acknowledge, however, that the restriction on inter-reservation prosecution makes little sense. It is undisputed that the MCT is a federally recognized tribe, and that the six bands that make up the MCT are not individual federally recognized tribes, but are “component reservations.” Davis, 773 N.W.2d at 75 (Page, J., dissenting) (citing Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 73 Fed. Reg. 18,553, 18,555 (Apr. 4, 2008)). As Gary Frazier, the executive director of the MCT testified, it is impossible to be a member of one of the individual bands but not a member of the MCT. Nonetheless, the Davis decision holds that the differentiation between bands is dispositive as to whether tribal court has jurisdiction over the matter. In other words, under Davis, despite the fact that appellant is an enrolled member of the MCT, resides on Leech Lake, and the offenses occurred there, the tribe’s interest in self-governance is not applicable to his case because his reservation of registration is White Earth. This conclusion seems to conflict with Stone, which recognizes that “Indian tribes retain ‘attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.’” 572 N.W.2d at 728 (quoting Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. at 207, 107 S. Ct. at 1087).

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Tribal Court Jurisdiction Appeal from Rosebud Sioux

July 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe:

Columbe Opening Brief

RST Answer Brief

Columbe Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Cert Opposition Brief in Native Village of Eyak Aboriginal Rights Case

July 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

USA Cert Opp

The petition and links to other materials is here.

Federal Court Dismisses OSHA Claim against Seminole Casino

July 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Maestro v. Seminole Tribe of Florida (M.D. Fla.):

DCT Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Seminole Motion to Dismiss

Maestro Response

Ben Shelly Op/Ed in WaPo about Baby Veronica Case

July 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

Ninth Circuit Partially Reverses Conviction for Theft from Fort Peck Tribe

July 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in United States v. White Eagle.

The court’s summary:

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part a criminal judgment in a case arising out of the involvement by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent at the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in a scheme to obtain money from a tribal credit program.

Reversing convictions on counts charging conspiracy to convert tribal credit program proceeds (18 U.S.C. § 371) and theft and conversion from an Indian Tribal Organization (18 U.S.C. §§ 1163, 2), the panel held that the government’s misapplication theory, predicated at best on an employer directive and a civil regulation, cannot support a conviction; and that the government’s embezzlement and conversion theories also fail because the defendant never controlled or had custody of the funds that she later borrowed.

Affirming a bribery conviction (18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)), the panel held that a jury could easily infer a quid pro quo and had ample evidence to conclude that the defendant’s actions were “corrupt.”

Because the government did not show that the defendant violated a specific duty to report credit program fraud, the panel reversed her conviction of concealment of public corruption (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1)).

And the briefs:

White Eagle Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

White Eagle Reply Brief

Ninth Circuit Affirms Katie John Subsistence Rights Ruling

July 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here is the opinion.

And the court’s syllabus:

The panel affirmed the district court’s decisions upholding the 1999 Final Rules promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to implement part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act concerning subsistence fishing and hunting rights.

In Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Katie John I”), the court held that, because Congress included subsistence fishing in Title VIII, the Act applied to some of Alaska’s navigable waters. The 1999 Rules identified which navigable waters within Alaska constituted “public lands” under Title VIII of the Act, which provides a priority to rural Alaska residents for subsistence hunting and fishing on such lands.

As threshold issues, the panel held that the Secretaries appropriately used notice-and-comment rulemaking, rather than adjudication, to identify whose waters are “public lands” for the purpose of determining the scope of the Act’s rural subsistence policy; and that in construing the term “public lands,” the Secretaries were entitled to “some deference.” The panel concluded that, in the 1999 Rules, the Secretaries applied Katie John I and the federal reserved water rights doctrine in a principled manner. The panel held that it was reasonable for the Secretaries to decide that: the “public lands” subject to the Act’s rural subsistence priority included the waters within and adjacent to federal reservations; and reserved water rights for Alaska Native Settlement allotments were best determined on a case-by-case basis.

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials are here.