Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher – Page 733

Breann Swann Nuʻuhiwa on Good Native Hawaiian Governance

June 7, 2013June 7, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Breann Swann Nuʻuhiwa has published “Government of the People, by the People, for the People: Cultural Sovereignty, Civil Rights, and Good Native Hawaiian Governance” in the Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal.

Here is an excerpt:

Yet “civil rights,” as they are understood and articulated by the federal government, are not necessarily congruous with core Native Hawaiian beliefs about leadership, relationships, and responsibility. Furthermore, as history demonstrates, the wholesale appropriation of American rights principles by the Native Hawaiian people can hinder Native Hawaiian sovereignty and privilege non-community members over community members. Accordingly, the founders of the reorganized Native Hawaiian government must take special care to balance external expectations with Native Hawaiian beliefs and values in order to develop an approach to civil rights that maximizes Native Hawaiian sovereignty. This article seeks to provide information and analysis that may be of use to the Native Hawaiian convention participants as they design a civil rights approach.

Oglala Sioux Tribe Response to Judge Davis Motion to Dismiss

June 7, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

OST9(ReplyToDavisMTD)

The motion to dismiss is here.

Fletcher Webinar on Indian Land Tenure Foundation’s “Native Land Law” — Treaties — June 11

June 6, 2013June 11, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

ILTF is pleased to announce that Matthew Fletcher, Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State University College of Law, will be presenting at the June 11th Native Land Law CLE. Professor Fletcher will be discussing treaties.

Professor Fletcher recently published the sixth edition of Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law (Thomson West 2011) with David Getches, Charles Wilkinson, and Robert Williams and American Indian Tribal Law (Aspen 2011), the first casebook for law students on tribal law. Fletcher’s book, The Return of the Eagle: The Legal History of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, was released by Michigan State University Press in 2012. Professor Fletcher has published articles with Arizona Law Review, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Hastings Law Journal, University of Colorado Law Review, Houston Law Review, Tulane Law Review, and many others. He is the primary editor and author of Turtle Talk, the leading law blog on American Indian law and policy.

The Native Land Law CLE series provides an overview of the 17 legal principles outlined in the legal treatise, Native Land Law: General Principles of Law Relating to Native Lands and Natural Resources, and offers analysis of federal laws and policies that impact the field of Indian law today. Professor Fletcher will offer his own insights into the significance of treaties during this month’s two-hour program.

The CLE will be offered from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. (CST) on Tuesday, June 11th.

Click here to learn more about the CLE and register for the program. http://www.iltf.org/native-land-law.

All of the previous CLE programs offered as part of the Native Land Law Series are available on demand. To view Professor Colette Routel’s presentation on the Fundamentals of Policy and History or Professor Lindsay Robertson’s presentation on the Discovery Doctrine, Plenary Power & Termination, visit us at http://www.iltf.org/native-land-law.

Update Federal District Court Materials in Yakama/Washington Tax Dispute

June 6, 2013June 6, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are updated materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):

DCT Denying Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Service

DCT Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration

Yakama Motion to Compel Arbitration

Yakama Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Service

State Opposition to Yakama Motions

Yakama Reply on Arbitration

Yakama Reply on Ineffective Service Motion

Prior posts are here and here. The case is pending in the CA9 — materials here.

Tulalip COA Holds ICRA’s Excessive Fines Clause Applies to Tribal Civil Forfeiture

June 6, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in The Tulalip Tribes v. 2008 White Ford Econoline Van (Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals).

NPR on Star Wars’ New Translation into Navajo

June 6, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

New Practitioner Paper on the Tenth Amendment Implications of IGRA’s Class II and Class III Distinction

June 6, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Jacob Berman of the California AG’s office has published Such Gaming Causes Trouble: Constitutional and Statutory Confusion with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in the Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law.

There is no abstract but this paragraph from the conclusion establishes the premise:

Since its passage, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has proved wildly successful at improving Indian tribes’ economic status, but the Second and Tenth Circuits have deviated from Congress’ original intent. The IGRA was intended to put Indian tribes and state governments on an equal footing, not to give tribal governments undue leverage over state governments. This principle of tribal-state equality has been ignored by the Second and Tenth Circuits, which instead decided to force states to choose between no Class III gambling and all Class III gambling, treating state lotteries, race tracks, and off-track betting as functionally equivalent to craps, roulette and slot machines. Not only does this approach go against Congress’ intent in passing the IGRA, but it also goes against the Tenth Amendment’s anti-coercion doctrine, which prohibits the federal government from enlisting state legislatures and to enforce federal policies. The Eleventh Amendment option, created in Seminole, presents no viable alternative for a state seeking to maintain any form of regulated Class III gaming under the class-based test.

Not supportive of tribal prerogatives, and basically reads Cabazon Band of the equation. The language in red above, in my view, is just flat wrong on a number of levels. Oh well.

Update in Chukchansi Factional Dispute

June 6, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the updated materials in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Rabobank (E.D. Cal.):

Ayala Faction Motion for TRO

Rabobank Opposition

Lewis Faction Opposition

DCT Order Denying TRO

Our prior post that includes the proceedings in what the district court called the “Ayala tribal court” are here.

Tonasket v. Sargent Cert Petition — Challenge to Colville Tax Compact

June 5, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Tonasket v Sargent Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether Indian tribal immunity from suit allows the Indian tribe, a price fixing competitor, to be immune from federal anti-trust laws?

2. Whether the officials of an Indian tribe that include the tribe’s tobacco tax administrator, acting in violation of federal law, can be protected by tribal immunity when prospective relief is sought?

Lower court materials here.