More Yellow Snow Pics at Arizona Snowbowl

The NYTs has a few good ones here.

We posted one here last month.

Gross.

Dean Stacy Leeds to Present Sixth Annual Canby Lecture – Jan 24 at 4:30 pm at Arizona State

2013_Leeds_canby_lecture_evite_650

The Indian Legal Program at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University is holding the Sixth Annual William C. Canby Jr. Lecture on Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 4:30 MST.

“Whose Sovereignty? Tribal Citizenship, Federal Indian Law, and Globalization” by Stacy L. Leeds, Dean, University of Arkansas School of Law

Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University

4:30 p.m. / Armstrong Hall / Great Hall

Free and Open to the Public – followed by a Public Reception at 5:30 pm / Law School Rotunda

1 General CLE credit available for State Bar of Arizona for attendance in person

Your RSVP for attendance in person is greatly appreciated. Free tickets/RSVP online at: canbylecture2013.eventbrite.com or call Darlene Lester at 480-965-7715.

Free Live web-streaming at http://online.law.asu.edu/events/2013/canby at 4:30 p.m. MST. No registration needed.

Washington SCt Briefs in State v. Clark — Authority of State Law Enforcement on Indian Trust Land

Here are the briefs in State v. Clark:

Lower court materials here.

Washington COA Holds State Courts Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Tribal Corporation

Here is the opinion in Outsource Services Management v. Nooksack Business Corporation:

Wash COA Opinion

And the briefs:

Outsource Services Management, Respondent v. Nooksack Business Corporation, Appellant
Case Number – 67050-6
Hearing Date – 09/20/2012

New Scholarship Recommending Curbs on Tribal Payday Lenders

Heather L. Pretrovich, a North Carolina law student, has published Circumventing State Consumer Protection Laws: Tribal Immunity and Internet Payday Lending in the North Carolina Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

As tribal payday lending becomes more prevalent, there is a dire need for federal action to halt the trend’s momentum. In 2010, tribal payday lenders made up “[m]ore than 35 of the 300” Internet payday lenders and made “about $420 million in payday loans.” The need for regulation of this conduct is imminent—“[s]ome observers predict that the number of tribes with payday-loan operations eventually could climb close to the 400 that now have casinos.” Additionally, various lenders have shown an interest in copying the tribal lending business model, which will likely result in additional industry growth. In the absence of federal regulation, the number of companies targeting consumers will increase, rendering previous state regulation efforts futile.

This Comment argues that federal action is necessary to block attempts by payday lenders to bypass consumer protection laws by organizing as tribal entities. Because the federal government does not currently regulate payday lending and tribes are immune from state suit, states are unable to protect their consumers from the practices that they have previously fought to curtail. Due to these obstacles, this Comment proposes possible solutions that can prevent tribal payday lending companies from circumventing state consumer protection laws. Part I provides background information introducing the specific problems that states have encountered in their initial regulation efforts against these companies. Part II describes why tribal payday lending cases are so rare and analyzes this body of case law. Part III analyzes why state regulation is inadequate and the reasoning behind the need for a federal response to this practice. Finally, Part IV examines what courses of action may be taken and which of those proposals are most likely to quickly and effectively address the problem.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Pojoaque Tribal Gaming Contract Dispute

Here are the materials in Fine Consulting, Inc. v. Rivera (D. N.M.):

DCT Order Granting Rivera Motion

Fine Consulting Complaint

Rivera Motion to Dismiss

Fine Consulting Opposition

Rivera Reply

If anyone doubts the impact of good Indian law scholarship, then look here. Sarah Krakoff’s excellent Colorado Law Review article Tribal Civil Judicial Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers: A Practical Guide for Judges is all over this opinion.

Pending Ninth Circuit En Banc Petition Materials in Maxwell v. County of San Diego

You’ll recall the panel opinion here found that tribal employees have no official immunity for official actions.

Here are the en banc petition materials:

Viejas Band En Banc Petition

Gila River Amicus Brief

Suquamish Tribe Amicus Brief

Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Amicus Brief

Maxwell Response to En Banc Petition

Maxwell Supplemental Authorities Letter

The petition is still pending, but perhaps the Miller v. Wright amendment is evidence that the Ninth Circuit could take this case for en banc review.

Ninth Circuit Amends Miller v. Wright Panel Opinion

Here is the amended opinion.

Our post on the prior opinion is here.

The single amendment is to eliminate this footnote:

4. Neither in the district court nor on appeal do Miller, Lanphere, and Matheson allege a separate and distinct claim for injunctive or declaratory relief against the officials qua officials. See Maxwell, —- F.3d —-, 2012 WL 4017462, at *11. We therefore express no opinion as to the viability of such a claim against the officials themselves.

An en banc petition in the Maxwell case is currently pending.

Chicago Law Review Note on Federal Diversity Jurisdiction and Tribal Corporations

Graham Safty, a University of Chicago Law School student, has published Federal Diversity Jurisdiction and American Indian Tribal Corporations in the University of Chicago Law Review.

Here is an excerpt:

This Comment examines how federal courts determine the state citizenship of tribal corporations when deciding whether they can exercise diversity jurisdiction. It is well established that the Indian tribe itself—the constitutional tribe—is a “stateless entity” that is never subject to federal diversity jurisdiction. A federal court cannot hear a case in which an Indian tribe is a party unless there is another basis for subject matter jurisdiction, such as federal question jurisdiction. The rules that pertain to tribal corporations, however, remain unsettled. Courts have not adopted a comprehensive or uniform approach to determining when, if ever, they can exercise diversity jurisdiction over cases involving tribal corporations. Yet the rule that a court selects can have a profound impact on the likelihood that a tribal corporation will be susceptible to diversity jurisdiction.

Eighth Circuit Decides City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Ojibwe Indians Gaming Revenue Sharing Appeal

Here are the materials in City of Duluth v. Fond Du Lac Band of Chippewa:

CA8 Opinion

Fond du Lac Brief

City of Duluth Brief

Fond du Lac Band Reply

City of Duluth Reply

From the court’s summary:

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. A binding adjudication by a federal agency, which has been tasked with interpreting and enforcing a statute enacted by Congress, represents a change in the law for the purposes of Rule 60(b); here, the National Indian Gaming Commission’s decision that the agreement between the parties concerning the operation of a casino was in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act made illegal what the earlier consent decree between the parties was designed to enforce, and the district court did not err in deciding to grant prospective relief from continued enforcement of the 1994 consent decree by dissolving the decree as it related to the years 2011-2036; the district court erred in concluding that it could not grant retrospective relief under Rule 60(b)(6) and its ruling denying retrospective relief on rent payments from 2009 to 2011 is reversed, and the question remanded for further consideration.

Lower court materials here.