Very nicely done! Especially the part at the bottom of page 1 where me and Wenona’s boys Emmett and Owen are eating at their favorite restaurant, Pizza House!
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/Cherokee Nation Oral Argument Time Splits
From today’s SCT order:
Upon consideration of the motions for leave participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and the motions for divided argument, the time is to be divided as follows: 20 minutes for petitioners, 10 minutes for respondent Guardian ad Litem, 20 minutes for respondent Birth Father, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.
Presumably that means:
20 minutes for petitioners — Lisa Blatt
10 minutes for respondent Guardian ad Litem — Paul Clement
20 minutes for respondent Birth Father — Charles Rothfield
10 minutes for the Solicitor General.
Another monster Indian law argument before the Supremes.
Robinson Rancheria Disenrollees Bring Housing Contract Breach Suit
Here is the complaint in Harrison v. Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians (N.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
1. This action is brought by Alan and Christina Harrison, Robert Quitiquit, Karen Ramos, Inez Sands, and Reuben Want (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs are disenrolled members of the Robinson Rancheria (“Defendant” or “Tribe”).
2. Plaintiffs seek relief for Defendant’s: 1) violation of their rights to due process, and 2) breach of contract.3. Plaintiffs are parties to a housing program designed, funded and supervised by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).4. Plaintiffs entered in Mutual Housing Occupancy Agreements (“MHOA”) whereby an Indian Housing Authority would administer a home lease with an option to buy. Initially, HUD contracted with the Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority (NCIHA”), a non-Robinson Rancheria entity.5. Defendant, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, assumed the rights and responsibilities of the Indian Housing Authority and the MHOAs with Plaintiffs.6. Defendant breached the MHOAs repeatedly since assuming the contractual responsibility to administer the agreements in compliance with its terms, which include applicable HUD regulations.7. Defendants then initiated a multi-year plan to unlawfully evict Plaintiffs in contravention of the MHOA terms, which employ landlord tenant law under federal, state or local law.8. Defendants denied Plaintiffs’ due process as required by the Robinson Rancheria Tribal Court and initiated a federal case asking the court to rally federal marshals to enforce the unlawful eviction issued by the corrupt tribal court. When the federal court insisted upon reviewing the MHOAs and sending the parties to mediation, the Defendant immediately withdrew their complaint.9. Plaintiffs have lost their homes, seen their possessions thrown into large garbage bins and had their pets killed and discarded.
10. Now virtually homeless and having received no assistance from HUD or the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Congress, the Plaintiffs herein file this action.
KBIC Member Sues Michigan DNR over State Regs Affecting Pig Farming
Here is the complaint in Turenen v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources (W.D. Mich.):
An excerpt:
Plaintiff is a family farmer and a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) residing and farming in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Plaintiff has been raising crops and livestock for the past 23 years on land located in the territory ceded to the United States of America via the 1842 Treaty between the United States and the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 7 Stat. 591 (the 1842 Treaty). Plaintiff’s farming operations are conducted pursuant to rights reserved in Article II of the 1842 Treaty and pursuant to a license from KBIC. Plaintiff’s treaty-protected farming activities are being threatened by the policies and activities of Defendants which seek to destroy a certain agri-industry in the State of Michigan, so-called hunting estates. To achieve this questionable goal Defendants have sought to prohibit Plaintiff’s pigs through an Invasive Species Order which literally can be applied to any pig in existence. Further, Defendants’ policies make no provision for Plaintiff’s treaty-protected farming activities and Defendants’ seek to impose their regulatory schemes upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff invokes this Court’s jurisdiction in order to protect her treaty reserved right to farm within the territory ceded to the United States by the 1842 Treaty.
Chukchansi v. NIGC Complaint
Here is the complaint in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Stevens (D. D.C.):
An excerpt:
This is a civil action against the United States National Indian Gaming Commission and its officials (collectively, the “Chairwoman,” the “Commission,” the “NIGC,” or “Defendants”) under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, et seq. and 701, et seq., seeking mandamus and related relief compelling the Commission to comply with its statutory duty to approve and publish gaming ordinance amendments submitted by the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians (“Tribe”).
Federal Court Rejects Alabama-Coushatta Tribe’s Effort to Force US to Pay Land Claims Judgment
Here are the materials in Alabama-Coushatta Tribe v. United States (E.D. Tex.):
We posted the complaint here.
Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Navajo’s Shiprock Schools’ Tribally Controlled Schools Act Suit
Here are the materials in Shiprock Associated Schools Inc. v. United States (D. N.M.):
DCT Order Denying Federal Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
Defendants’ disallowance of the School’s administrative cost expenditures was based on an unreasonable and improper interpretation of the TCSA. Count I of the Complaint, which seeks relief from Defendants’ disallowance determination on the basis that it reflects an invalid interpretation of the TCSA, thus states a claim upon which relief can be granted. The remaining Counts of the Complaint, all of which are alleged in the alternative and necessarily depend upon a determination that Defendants’ interpretation of the TCSA was valid, are rendered moot by this Court’s decision.
Federal Court Holds Interior Secretary Retains Authority to Make Trust Land Acquisitions for Alaska Natives
Here are the materials in Akiachak Native Community v. Salazar (D. D.C.):
DCT Order Granting Summary J to Plaintiffs
Akiachak et al Motion for Summary J
Akiachak Supplemental Reply Brief
An excerpt:
Four tribes of Alaska Natives and one individual Native brought this suit to challenge the Secretary of the Interior’s decision to leave in place a regulation that treats Alaska Natives differently from other native peoples. The challenged regulation governs the taking of land into trust under Section 5of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 465; it provides that, with one exception, the regulatory procedures “do not cover the acquisition of land in trust status in the State of Alaska.” 25 C.F.R. § 151.1. The plaintiffs argue that this exclusion of Alaska Natives-and only Alaska Natives-from the land-into-trust application process is void under 25 U.S.C. § 476(g), which nullifies regulations that discriminate among Indian tribes. The State of Alaska has intervened to argue that the differential treatment is required by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (“ANCSA” or the “Claims Settlement Act”), which (on the State’s account) deprived the Secretary of the statutory authority to take most Alaska land into trust.
The Secretary disagrees, but nonetheless seeks to justify the regulation by reference to ANCSA. For the reasons explained below, the court concludes [2] that the Secretary retains his statutory authority to take land into trust on behalf of all Alaska Natives, and that his decision to maintain the exclusion of most Natives from the land-into-trust regulation violates 25 U.S.C. § 476(g), which provides that contrary regulations “shall have no force or effect.” The court therefore grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, and orders additional briefing on the question of the proper remedy.
Blast from the Past: 1939 Oberlin College Master’s Thesis: “Decline of Indian Tribal Sovereignty in the Nineteenth Century”
Interesting read, in that it comes right as World War II began and reads like it could have been written in the modern era. Also includes the text of the letter from President Jackson to Georgia Gov. Lampkin strongly implying he ought to let Samuel Worcester et al. go home:
Decline of Indian Tribal Sovereignty in the Nineteenth Century
Judge Martinez Issues Permanent Injunction Favoring Treaty Tribes in U.S. v. Washington Culverts Subproceeding
HUGE.
Here is the order (briefs shortly):
752 – Memorandum and Order Granting Perm. Injunction
UPDATE: Perm Injunction
Judge Martinez’s 2007 order (and materials) is here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.