Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

American Indian Law Review Symposium– March 7, 2013

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Overcoming Barriers Symposium Discusses Resolving Conflict in Indian Country March 7 at OU Law

For Immediate Release

Media Contact: Evie Holzer, eholzer@ou.edu

NORMAN – The University of Oklahoma American Indian Law Review, Student Bar Association, Native American Law Student Association, and Native American Studies program present the Overcoming Barriers Symposium with registration beginning at 7:45 a.m. Thursday, March 7, at the College of Law, 300 Timberdell Road in Norman.

This daylong symposium blends the richness of Native American culture with the profound legal landscapes facing America’s tribes. Some of the most renowned scholars and practitioners will exchange their wisdom on resolving intra-tribal conflict and defining jurisdictional boundaries. Symposium participants will also have the opportunity to take a Native American Art tour on display at the OU College of Law and experience musical entertainment by Native American musicians.

Symposium presenters include:
• Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
• David Mullon, Staff Director and Chief Counsel, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
• Ed Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General of the United States
• Leroy Sage Not Afraid, Justice of the Peace, Big Horn County, Montana
• Tracy Toulou, Director of the Office of Tribal Justice, U.S. Department of Justice
• Barbara Smith, Chief Justice, Chickasaw Supreme Court

For additional information and to view the full symposium agenda, go to www.law.ou.edu/ailrsymposium or contact Paige Hoster at paigehoster@ou.edu or Chris Thompson at christhompson@ou.edu.

Minnesota SCT Affirms State Jurisdiction to Civilly Confine Leech Lake Band Ojibwe Member

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is today’s opinion in Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services.

Mr. Beaulieu previously challenged his confinement in federal court, materials here.

Second Update to Materials in Miccosukee v. Cypress — Miccosukee Responses to Motions to Dismiss

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Miccosukee Response to Cypress

Miccosukee Response to Hernandez

Miccosukee Response to Lehtinen

Miccosukee Response to Lewis & Tein

Miccosukee Response to Martinez

Motions to dismiss were here.

Second amended complaint here.

Additional pleading:

Tein Motion to Compel

Federal Court Rejects Carcieri/NEPA/Other Challenges to North Fork Rancheria Trust Acquisition

bryannewland4 Comments

Here are the materials in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of Interior (D. D.C.):

Memorandum Opinion

Interior Motion to Change Venue

Stand Up Motion pt 1

Stand Up Motion pt 2

Stand Up Motion pt 3

Picayune Rancheria Memorandum

Interior Response to Picayune Memorandum

Interior Response

North Fork Rancheria Opposition

Picayune Reply

Stand Up Reply

Michigan Law Review Note on Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Christiana M. Martenson has published “Uncounseled Tribal Court Guilty Pleas in State and Federal Courts: Individual Rights Versus Tribal Self-Governance” (PDF) in the Michigan Law Review. Here is the abstract:

Indian tribes in the United States are separate sovereigns with inherent self-governing authority. As a result, the Bill of Rights does not directly bind the tribes, and criminal defendants in tribal courts do not enjoy the protection of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In United States v. Ant, a defendant—without the legal assistance that a state or federal court would have provided—pled guilty to criminal charges in tribal court. Subsequently, the defendant faced federal charges arising out of the same events that led to the tribal prosecution. The Ninth Circuit in Ant barred the federal prosecutor from using the defendant’s prior uncounseled tribal court guilty plea as evidence in the federal proceeding, explaining that doing so would violate the Sixth Amendment. This Note argues that Ant is no longer good law. First, Ant’s legal foundation is weak, especially in light of subsequent developments in Sixth Amendment jurisprudence. Second, Ant is poor policy because excluding tribal court guilty pleas from state and federal proceedings undermines tribal self-governance. Even though governments must protect the rights of individual criminal defendants, supporting tribal authority will ultimately lead to decreased violence on Indian land and increased consistency with federal legislation.

Navajo Nation Press Release on Disaster Relief Bill Approval

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. Our post with the bill text is here. The press release text:

Bipartisan Disaster Relief Bill Approved

 Tribes To Be Treated Like States, Navajo President Encouraged

WASHINGTON—In a 62-36 vote, the Senate last night approved HR 152, a $50.5 billion package aimed at providing relief and assisting the recovery of communities that were devastated by last October’s Hurricane Sandy.

Included in the measure are provisions that change federal disaster laws to treat tribes as state, rather than local governments.

Having actively encouraged the changes since early last year through meetings and letters with congressional and administration officials and staff, Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly expressed his thanks to Congress for this bold affirmation of tribal sovereignty.

“The Navajo Nation has had a distinct government since before the United States gained its independence from a colonial power. The United States is committed by law and treaty to the self-governance of the Navajo Nation, and working with us on a government-to-government basis. The passage of this bill is a welcoming sign of the blossoming recognition nationally of the sovereignty of the Navajo Nation as a co-equal government within the United States. I appreciate the bipartisan team in Congress that approved this bill, and the bold leadership of the Obama Administration and FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate in endorsing the proposal”.

After the president signs the bill into law, FEMA will hold consultations on the successful implementation of the measure in the coming months.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Gambling Addict’s Complaint against Muscogee

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Santana v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation:

Santana Brief

Muscogee Brief

CA10 unpublished opinion

Lower court materials here.

Stafford Act Amendments (Sandy Relief Bill) Passes: Includes Tribal Emergency Requests Provision

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the bill (H.R. 152), and relevant text (Section 1110):

SEC. 1110. TRIBAL REQUESTS FOR A MAJOR DISASTER OR EMERGENCY DECLARATION UNDER THE STAFFORD ACT.

    (a) Major Disaster Requests- Section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) is amended–
    (1) by striking `All requests for a declaration’ and inserting `(a) In General- All requests for a declaration’; and
    (2) by adding at the end the following:
    `(b) Indian Tribal Government Requests-
    `(1) IN GENERAL- The Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government may submit a request for a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists consistent with the requirements of subsection (a).
    `(2) REFERENCES- In implementing assistance authorized by the President under this Act in response to a request of the Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government for a major disaster declaration, any reference in this title or title III (except sections 310 and 326) to a State or the Governor of a State is deemed to refer to an affected Indian tribal government or the Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government, as appropriate.
    `(3) SAVINGS PROVISION- Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit an Indian tribal government from receiving assistance under this title through a declaration made by the President at the request of a State under subsection (a) if the President does not make a declaration under this subsection for the same incident.
    `(c) Cost Share Adjustments for Indian Tribal Governments-
    `(1) IN GENERAL- In providing assistance to an Indian tribal government under this title, the President may waive or adjust any payment of a non-Federal contribution with respect to the assistance if–
    `(A) the President has the authority to waive or adjust the payment under another provision of this title; and
    `(B) the President determines that the waiver or adjustment is necessary and appropriate.
    `(2) CRITERIA FOR MAKING DETERMINATIONS- The President shall establish criteria for making determinations under paragraph (1)(B).’.
    (b) Emergency Requests- Section 501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5191) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    `(c) Indian Tribal Government Requests-

Continue reading →

Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of Navajo Employment Preference Law against Salt River Project

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Lee (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order Granting Salt River Project Motion

Salt River Project Motion for Summary J

Navajo Cross-Motion

Salt River Project Reply

Navajo Reply

This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, materials here.

For more background on the Navajo Preference in Employment Act, see Howard Brown and Ray Austin’s excellent article here.

Cherokee Nation En Banc Petition in Vann v. Salazar

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

2013-01-28 Appellee Cherokee Nation Petition for Rehearing (without attachments)

Panel materials here.

The D.C. Circuit has had few, if any, en banc hearings in the last few years because the court is severely understaffed. There have been, however, a rash of dissents from denial of en banc petitions which serve as a sort of marker for later review. Worth it to see if anything happens here.