From the website:
Angela Riley spoke in the Supreme Court chamber about the history of the Supreme Court and Native American lands. The lecture, which took place in the Supreme Court chamber, was one in a series hosted by the Supreme Court Historical Society on the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and property rights. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg introduced Professor Riley.
Video here.
Legal analysis on the import of the treaty from the international law scholars at Opinio Juris, here. An excerpt:
Beyond the U.S. law, there’s also a fairly interesting issue of how international law regards this sort of treaty-making. As I’ve written previously, international law imposes two conditions on treaty-making by a sub-national actor: (1) explicit treaty-making authority from the State of which it is a component part (whether ex-ante or ex-post); and (2) the consent of potential treaty-partners to the sub-national actors’ participation in the treaty itself. Here, it seems we have a willing group of treaty partners, so the treaty seems OK on the second element (that is, assuming the Canadian First Nations are themselves authorized to make treaties under Canadian law). Still, there are questions as to whether the United States has to authorize this treaty, whether it has done so (or will need to do so going forward), and why it would ever do so when the treaty’s objective would be to lobby and/or constrain federal government behavior. Now, there is an argument that, as indigenous peoples, Native American tribes should not be subject to the standard rules for treaty-making by sub-national actors (indeed, Article 36(1) of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights makes just such a claim). But, the United States was one of four nations to object to that Declaration (along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand), so I’m hard pressed to see it getting traction in this case, especially where the treaty involves an alliance of indigenous peoples to oppose federal licensing efforts (and with it perhaps some key aspects of U.S. energy policy).
As such, I think the ball is now firmly in the Obama Administration’s court. I’m interested to see how it responds to this treaty (including, which Agency takes the lead in responding to it). I suppose silence is a possible course of action. But, if the federal government remains silent, I think that might lead to arguments of U.S. tacit approval for this treaty in particular, and even more broadly, a right of treaty making with foreign powers for U.S. Native American tribes.
For a primer on intertribal treaty making, see Wenona Singel’s Indian Tribes and Human Rights Accountability (email me if you want a pdf).
Here.
An excerpt:
Two families from the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana can proceed with a lawsuit against an F.B.I. agent that accuses him of failing to properly investigate crimes against American Indians on and around the reservation, the United States Supreme Court has ruled.
Ninth Circuit materials here.
Here.
We posted about this a few months back.
Here.
Here are all of the materials now in the case consolidated as Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Community v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.) (we posted preliminary materials here):
Complaint here.
George Forman Affidavit in Spport of TRO
Consolidated Federal Opposition
I thought he lived at Hoopa….
Here.
Here are the materials in Rosser v. Rosser (W.D. Okla.):
Jennifer Rosser Opposition to John Rosser Motion
Tribal Judge Motion to Dismiss
Jennifer Rosser Opposition to Judge Motion
Complicated, ugly case, like so many family law cases. An excerpt:
As noted above, Plaintiff seeks two forms of relief. First, a writ of habeas corpus ordering the return of her daughter, K.T., and, second, a declaratory judgment determining the jurisdiction of the tribal court. 25 U.S.C. § 1303 provides that a writ of habeas corpus shall “be available to any person, in a court of the United States, to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.” Although as a general matter courts will not use this statute to intervene in child custody determinations, the facts as alleged in this case warrant a departure from the usual practice. According to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, the tribal court has ordered custody of K.T. be awarded to a person who has no legal status to her. Thus, this case is distinguishable from the typical child custody dispute where the losing party is simply seeking a different court’s take on a custody determination between two parties. Because Plaintiff has set forth allegations which state a plausible claim for relief under § 1303, Defendant Rosser’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) will be denied.
Here is White House press release.
Excerpt:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 31, 2013
President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the US Court of Appeals
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama nominated Jane Kelly and Gregory Alan Phillips to the United States Court of Appeals.
President Obama said, “Jane Kelly and Gregory Alan Phillips have proven themselves to be not only first-rate legal minds but faithful public servants. It is with full confidence in their ability, integrity, and independence that I nominate them to the bench of the United States Court of Appeals.”
Jane Kelly: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jane Kelly has been an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Northern District of Iowa since 1994, serving as the Supervising Attorney in the Cedar Rapids office since 1999.Kelly was born and raised in Greencastle, Indiana. She received her B.A. summa cum laude in 1987 from Duke University and her J.D. cum laude in 1991 from Harvard Law School. After graduating from law school, Kelly clerked for the Honorable Donald J. Porter of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Subsequently, she also clerked for the Honorable David R. Hansen on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Prior to becoming an Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kelly worked briefly as a visiting instructor at the University of Illinois College of Law. Since joining the Federal Public Defender’s Office, Kelly has argued numerous federal appellate cases, tried 14 cases to verdict in federal court, and argued countless motions. In 2004, she received the John Adams Award from the Iowa Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, which is given annually to an Iowa attorney who has dedicated his or her career to defending the indigent.
Gregory Alan Phillips: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Gregory Alan Phillips has served as Wyoming’s Attorney General since March 2011. As Attorney General, he is the chief law enforcement officer of the state and his office represents Wyoming in all criminal appeals and civil suits before state and federal courts.Phillips grew up in Evanston, Wyoming. He received his B.A. from the University of Wyoming in 1983 and his J.D. with honors from the University of Wyoming College of Law in 1987. After graduating from law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Alan B. Johnson of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming from 1987 to 1989. In 1989, Phillips joined his father and brother in their general law practice in Evanston, handling a broad range of civil matters. From 1993 to 1999, he also represented Uinta County in the Wyoming State Senate. Phillips opened the law firm Mead & Phillips in 1998, where he handled a wide variety of civil litigation and prosecuted Medicaid reimbursement claims on behalf of Wyoming. In 2003, he joined the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Wyoming and handled criminal prosecutions and appeals on behalf of the government. As an Assistant United States Attorney, Phillips argued nineteen cases before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He continued to serve in the United States Attorney’s Office until he was selected to serve as Attorney General by current Wyoming Governor Matthew Mead.
Here.
An excerpt; okay, maybe the whole thing:
WASHINGTON – Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Craig Fugate released the below statement following the President’s signing of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, which includes a provision to amend the Stafford Act allowing Tribes direct access to federal disaster relief.
“FEMA has strong, long-standing relationships with Tribal governments, and they are essential members of the emergency management team. We commend the efforts of Members of Congress, Tribal leadership and their organizations, the Department of Homeland Security, and the President who have made this change a reality. This legislative change to the Stafford Act will provide federally recognized Tribal governments the option to choose whether to make a request directly to the President for an emergency or major disaster declaration, or to receive assistance, as they do presently, through a declaration for a State. This amendment to the Stafford Act follows on the President’s commitments to Indian Country, strengthens the government to government relationship between FEMA and federally recognized Tribes, and will enhance the way FEMA supports Tribal communities before, during, and after disasters.”
Fully implementing this historic provision will require consultation with Tribes and other stakeholders, particularly as FEMA develops the administrative and programmatic requirements and procedures necessary to execute the law. FEMA will provide interim guidance in the coming weeks explaining how and when Tribal governments may seek declarations, while more comprehensive consultations and administrative procedures are undertaken.
You must be logged in to post a comment.