New Scholarship on Native Hawaiians and NAGPRA

E. Sunny Greer has published ” Na Wai Hoʻōla i Nā Iwi?  Who Will Save the Bones:  Native Hawaiians and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act” in the Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal.

An excerpt:

This paper will argue that although the application of the Native American Graves Protection Act (“NAGPRA”) in Hawai‘i is problematic, it is imperative that Native Hawaiians include the care of ancestral remains and cultural objects as integral components of their cultural and political assertion of sovereignty.

Federal Court Dismisses Seminole Challenge to Florida Fuel Tax

Here are the materials in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida Dept. of Revenue (S.D. Fla.):

DCT Order Granting Florida Motion

Seminole Complaint

Florida Dept. of Revenue Motion to Dismiss

Seminole Response

Florida Dept. of Revenue Reply

An excerpt:

The Court will dismiss the Complaint for two reasons. First, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over any claims that essentially seek review of the previous state-court action. Second, because the fuel tax applies only to off-reservation activity, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Tax Injunction Act.

The Florida courts previously ruled in a similar claim a few years back; hence, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Little River Band Ottawa Passes Resolution in Support of Idle No More

For Immediate Release

LRBOI Supports First Nations Treaty Rights and ‘Idle No More’ (resolution: LRB — Idle No More)
(1.10.13Manistee, MI) The Tribal Council of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians has adopted a resolution of international consequence supporting the ‘Idle No More’ movement, as they join with other Tribal Nations and (Canadian) First Nations in calling upon Prime Minister Harper to meet with Chief Spence immediately.
Council Speaker Steve Parsons said that, “We are joining our sister tribes in requesting consultation regarding the Canadian governments recent action passing a law that effectively ends First Nations Treaties and ends protections over 2 million waterways and lakes in Canada.”
On 11 December 2012, Chief Theresa Spence declared a hunger strike intended to focus public attention on First Nations issues, to support the Idle No More indigenous rights movement, and to highlight concerns about the government’s omnibus bill C-45.
The LRBOI Tribal Council also found that enactment of Bill C-45 by the Canadian government diminishes the sovereign authority of First Nations by diminishing protection for sacred lands and waterways in and around First Nations’ lands; lands and waterways that are shared with their tribal Clan Relatives around the Great Lakes.
The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians are signatories to a Great Lakes Water Accord with Great Lakes Basin Native Nations in the US; states bordering the Great Lakes as well as the First Nations of Canada. The accord was signed in December of 2004, when the Tribe agreed to support First Nations on the issues presented with the Idle No More Movement.

Events at Other Indian Law Programs Around the Nation

Ok, so it’s two things, but they’re excellent.

UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples S. James Anaya will be visiting Colorado Law on January 24 (events calendar here).

And Arkansas Law just started a Tribal Food and Agriculture Initiative (press release here).

Kristen Carpenter Publishes “Limiting Principles and Empowering Practices in American Indian Religious Freedom”

Kristen A. Carpenter has published her paper, “Limiting Principles and Empowering Practices in American Indian Religious Freedoms” (PDF) in the Connecticut Law Review. We highly recommend this paper.

The abstract:

Employment Division v. Smith was a watershed moment in First Amendment law, with the Supreme Court holding that neutral statutes of general applicability could not burden the free exercise of religion.  Congress’s subsequent attempts, including the passage of Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, to revive legal protections for religious practice through the legislative and administrative process have received tremendous attention from legal scholars.  Lost in this conversation, however, have been the American Indians at the center of the Smith case.  Indeed, for them, the decision criminalizing the possession of their peyote sacrament was only the last in a series of Supreme Court cases denying American Indian Free Exercise Clause claims. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Indian cases share a common and previously overlooked feature: in all of them, the Court assessed the Indian claims as too broad or too idiosyncratic to merit Free Exercise Clause protection and instead denied them through a succession of bright line formulations.  Identifying the unrequited search for a “limiting principle” as a basis for analysis, this Article reassesses the religion cases and underlying theoretical questions of institutionalism and equality, in their Indian context.  It then identifies two contemporary policy shifts—namely Congress’s decision to entrust accommodation of Indian religious freedoms to federal agencies and its decision to do so at the tribal, versus individual, level—that have, in some respects, facilitated an “empowering practices” approach to American Indian religious liberties in the post-Smith era.  Taking a descriptive and contextual approach, the Article illuminates opportunities for additional law reform in the American Indian context and also larger questions of institutionalism, equality, and pluralism in religious freedoms law.

Professor Carpenter’s paper already has an impressive impact. Ninth Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher based his keynote address at Berkeley Law School’s symposium on Phil Frickey’s legacy on her paper.

Dean Space on Idle No More at Balkinization

Here. An intriguing excerpt:

Movements against colonization raise significant questions for scholars studying the legal regulation of sexuality and family.  The imposition of gender norms and family formation norms and the use of sexual violence as a tool of war have been significant to processes of colonization.  The depiction of cultures and peoples targeted for colonization as “backward” in terms of sexuality and family formation has been a rationalization for colonization, and has often included portraying indigenous women as needing to be saved by the colonizers from their own families and cultures.  These methods and rationalizations are visible in the history of the colonization of North America where the Idle No More movement has been most visible so far, but we can also hear these rationales deployed to justify the war in Afghanistan, proposed war with Iran, and in rationales for Israeli settler colonialism in Palestine.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Holding that Major Crimes Act Juvenile Defendants May Be Tried as an Adult

Here is today’s opinion in United States v. Juvenile Male.

From the court’s summary:

The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting the government’s motion to transfer juvenile proceedings for adult prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 in a case in which the defendant is charged with second-degree murder and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Agreeing with sister circuits that a psychological evaluation is not a prerequisite to approving a transfer motion, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in making a finding about the defendant’s intellectual development by relying solely on lay-witness testimony. The panel also held that although the district court did not explicitly address the staff-to-offender ratio or specific counseling programs, the district court did not abuse its discretion in making findings about the treatment programs available at adult and juvenile facilities where the defendant might serve any sentence imposed. The panel wrote that the district court consistently presumed for purposes of the transfer decision that the defendant would be convicted of one or both charges, and that the presumption of guilt for this purpose does not violate the defendant’s due-process rights.

UN Indigenous Rights Special Rapporteur Calls for Dialogue with Canadian Aboriginal Rights Protesters

Here.

An excerpt:

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, urged the Government of Canada and Aboriginal leaders to undertake meaningful dialogue in light of First Nations protests and a month-long hunger strike by Chief Theresa Spence of the Attawapiskat First Nation.

“I am encouraged by reports that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has agreed to meet with First Nations Chiefs and leadership on 11 January 2013 to discuss issues related to Aboriginal and treaty rights as well as economic development,” Mr. Anaya said. “Both the Government of Canada and First Nations representatives must take full advantage of this opportunity to rebuild relationships in a true spirit of good faith and partnership.”

The announcement of the meeting followed weeks of protests carried out by Aboriginal leaders and activists within a movement referred to as ‘Idle no more.’ The movement has been punctuated by Chief Spence’s hunger strike that has been ongoing since 11 December 2012. “I would like to add my voice to the concern expressed by many over the health condition of Chief Spence, who I understand will be joining indigenous leaders at this week’s meeting,” the independent expert said.

The protests and hunger strike are carried in the context of complaints about aspects of the relationships between First Nations in Canada and the Government, including in the context of recent federal legislation and executive decisions affecting Aboriginal peoples.

“Dialogue between the Government and First Nations should proceed in accordance with the standards expressed in the UN Declaration* on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” the Special Rapporteur emphasized. Mr. Anaya recalled that the Government affirmed a “commitment to continue working in partnership with Aboriginal peoples and in accordance with a relationship based on good faith, partnership and mutual respect,” in its statement of support for the Declaration on 12 November 2010.

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Court Decisions Online

Here.

 

California Appellate Briefs in Employment Discrimination Suit against Morongo Casino Resort & Spa

Here are the materials in Chavez v. Morongo Casino Resort & Spa (Cal. App. 4th):

Chavez Opening Brief

Morongo Answer Brief