Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Mae Y. Sandoval v. Navajo Election Administration and Concerning Leo Johnson, Jr., Real Party in Interest. Opinion. Reversing the OHA, the Court finds that Dr. Leo Johnson was not qualified to run for school board member in the Shiprock Associated Schools,. Inc. (SASI) as he was an employee of that organization, which disqualified him from running. The election statute regarding sworn qualifications must be read as mandatory whether a challenge is raised before or after an election because an unqualified candidate may not hold elected office. (December 18. 2012).

Glenyal Bahe v. Adam Platero. Opinion. The Court affirms the Crownpoint Family Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s child custody and support action concerning a Navajo family in deference to a previously filed action in the Bernalillo district court. The Court emphasizes that inherent tribal sovereignty provides Navajo courts with exclusive jurisdiction over matters concerning internal relations between tribal members, and that the courts must be watchful that they do not unnecessarily concede concurrent jurisdiction in such matters. Nevertheless, 7 NNC 253a(E) enables our courts to defer to another forum in the interest of substantial justice and in the spirit of comity. (December 20. 2012).

Update in Hopi Tribe Endangered Species Act Claim against Feds re: Arizona Snowbowl

January 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Hopi has apparently moved to voluntarily dismiss this action. Here are some materials (but not all since it seems moot now):

Hopi Motion for PI

Federal Opposition

Hopi Response to Arizona Snowbowl Motion

Hopi Voluntary Dismissal Notice

Our first post on the complaint was here.

Michigan Indian Legal Services Fall 2012 Newsletter

January 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Featuring a profile if MSU Law ‘2011 grad Elaine Barr, our 2011-12 Center Fellow!

MILS_Newsletter_Fall_2012

Ninth Circuit Affirms Idaho Roadless Rule (Kootenai Tribe Intervened)

January 7, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Jayne v. Sherman.

Ann Tweedy on Allotment Era Literature and Whether there were Justifiable Expectations about the End of Tribes

January 7, 2013January 7, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Ann Tweedy has posted her forthcoming paper, “How Allotment-Era Literature Can Inform Current Controversies About Tribal Jurisdiction and Reservation Diminishment,” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in the University of Toronto Quarterly.

The abstract:

In a previous article, Unjustifiable Expectations: Laying to Rest the Ghosts of Allotment-Era Settlers, I argued that a review of historical newspaper articles showed that the expectations of non-Indians who purchased lands on Sioux reservations in South Dakota during the allotment-era as to tribes’ disappearing were not justifiable because they were rooted in an expectation of continued injustice towards tribes. I thus concluded that the Supreme Court should not presume that these allotment-era settlers had justifiable expectations when it decides reservation diminishment and tribal jurisdiction casesThis article addresses whether allotment-era literature pertaining to Sioux peoples can similarly help inform such cases. Although the results were more mixed, particularly with non-Indian-authored fiction, the works of Native writers such as Luther Standing Bear, Charles Eastman, and Zitkala-Ša were helpful in explicating the injustices in the federal government’s land dealings with tribes, as was a work by non-Native historian Doane Robinson.

What is a “CVSG”?

January 7, 2013January 7, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

We get the question all the time, so here goes:

A CVSG is an acronym for “call for the views of the Solicitor General.” This is a option for the Supreme Court when the United States is not a party to a cert petition but the interests of the federal government are implicated. It comes up when a party files a cert petition (say, the State of Michigan) where the respondent is not federal (say, the Bay Mills Indian Community) that involves the interpretation of federal statutes or some other federal interests. It comes up a lot (relatively speaking) in Indian law because the United States always has an interest (as trustee, etc.) in Indian cases, and have been involved in more Indian cases by far than any other party (even if you add up all the Supreme Court cases involving all Indian tribes collectively, I bet).

Since the Office of Solicitor General is influential on the Court, in part because it represents the United States and because it does so with remarkable candor about its positions, the SG’s brief (usually termed an “invitation brief”) is a strong indicator where the Court will go in terms of deciding whether to grant cert. In short, if the SG recommends denial, the Court very likely will deny.

Patricia Millett’s paper on the lawyering that goes on after the Court issues a CVSG is essential reading.

Supreme Court Invites SG to Brief Michigan v. Bay Mills; Denies Contour Spa Petition

January 7, 2013January 7, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order.

The Bay Mills CVSG notice is on page 2 (we called it here), and the Contour Spa denial notice is on page 4.

Turtle Talk

January 2013 Edition of Indian Tribal Governments News (IRS Newsletter)

KG Urban Amends Complaint

Canadian Court Rules Métis and Non-Status Indians are Indians

Navajo SCT Issues Two Opinions (on School District Elections and Family Law)