Here is the order:
DCT Order Denying Navajo Motion to Dismiss
Briefs are here.
Here are the materials in Hill v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Wash):
Thanks to Ezra Rosser for completing a newsletter for the AALS Indian Law Section: Indian Law Newsletter Jan 2013
The final agenda is here. The Indian-law related programs are all scheduled for Sunday.
10:30 – 12:15 AM
[6250] Section on Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples
Cambridge, Second Floor, Hilton New Orleans Riverside
Indian Gaming and the Future of Tribal Sovereignty
Speakers: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Michigan State University College of Law
Venus McGhee Prince, Attorney General, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Atmore, AL
Alexander T. Skibine, University of Utah, S. J. Quinney College of Law
George Skibine, Counsel, SNR Denton, Washington, DC
Indian gaming, which came to the forefront of American Indian affairs in the 1980s and 1990s, is now a $27 billion a year business. Indian gaming dramatically restored the relative fortunes of some of the poorest tribes, and helped tribes regain control over their lands and their lives. However, with increased competition, Indian gaming revenues have leveled off and projections for the future of Indian gaming widely vary. How will Indian nations respond? Our panel includes leading legal scholars and practitioners in the Indian gaming field.
Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.
2:00 – 3:45 PM
[6425] Crosscutting Program: (A program selected after a competitive process by the AALS Committee on Special Programs for the Annual Meeting)
Grand Ballroom D, First Floor, Hilton New Orleans Riverside
Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: The Intersection of Environmental Law, Natural Resources Development, Water Law, Energy Law, International Law, and Indigenous Law
(Papers to be published in the Tulane Environmental Law Journal)
Moderator and Speaker: Elizabeth Kronk, University of Kansas School of Law
Speakers: Randall S. Abate, Florida A&M University College of Law
Sara Bronin, University of Connecticut School of Law
Sarah A. Krakoff, University of Colorado School of Law
Judith V. Royster, The University of Tulsa College of Law
Previous AALS panels related to climate change have addressed the increasing importance of including a discussion of climate change in any law school curriculum. The purpose of the panel is to generally discuss the importance of including indigenous people in any discussion related to climate change. Particularly important is the recognition that legal “answers” to climate change may be different when indigenous people are involved. The panel will then focus on how climate change and its impact on indigenous people may be discussed in several different doctrinal areas. Specifically, each presenter will discuss the importance of this subject matter to his or her doctrinal area and include a discussion of how the topic may specifically be incorporated into lesson plans. The proposed topic is innovative in that program attendees will walk away with not only an understanding of why the topic is important but with actual lesson plans and proposed materials to include in their
4:00 – 5:45 PM
[6480] Section on Law and Anthropology
Cambridge, Second Floor, Hilton New Orleans Riverside
Human Rights, Culture, and Indigenous Development
Moderator: Kathryn Fort, Michigan State University College of Law
Speakers: Kirsten Carlson, Wayne State University Law School
Nicole B. Friederichs, Suffolk University Law School
Mark Goodale, Associate Professor, George Mason Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, Arlington, VA
Kirsty Gover, J.S.D., Programme Director, Comparative Tribal Constitutionalism Research Programme, Melbourne Law School, Carlton, Australia
The theme of this panel will be the exploration of several questions related to indigenous development, such as the following:
1.) How can human rights be used to develop a political and cultural environment in which indigenous peoples can achieve self-determination?
2.) What obstacles must be confronted as indigenous peoples use human rights law to assert their rights to resources, culture and self-governance?
3.) What strategies exist to develop the practice of intercultural education, exchange, respect and diplomacy in the field of human rights?
4.) What is the relationship between international human rights norms and processes and indigenous culture and governance?
Here are the materials in Aguayo v. Salazar (S.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in In re Moses (Moses v. Cashall) (E.D. N.C. Bkrtcy.):
Here are the materials in Russell v. Krowne (D. Md.):
DCT Order Vacating Default Judgment
Penoscot Indian Nation Motion for Default Judgment
Penobscot Response to Motion to Vacate
Strange case; seems to involve a program created by Penobscot called Grant America Program, which is home buyer down payment program, and the defendants’ website, which published internet posts calling the program a “scam.” The Nation and its allies claim defamation, and the defendants call the suit a SLAPP suit.
Here are the materials in Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham (N.D. Okla.), a case involving the authority of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation courts’ authority to hear internal government disputes of the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town:
DCT Order Granting Stidham Motion
Exh. 1 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Anderson Complaint
Exh. 2 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town App for Interlocutory Appeal
Exh. 3 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town App for Mandamus
Exh. 5 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Conditional Motion to Dismiss
Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Motion for PI
Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Response to Motion to Dismiss
Stidham Response to Motion for PI
Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Reply
Here are the materials in Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co. (D. S.D.):
DCT Order Requiring Tribal Court Exhaustion
Long Family Tribal Court Complaint
Plains Commerce Federal Court Complaint [plus tribal court docs]
Plains Commerce Motion for TRO
Plains Commerce Motion for Summary J
You may recall from Justice Pommersheim’s opinion from way back in the last decade that Plains Commerce only challenged the discrimination claim against it, not the bad faith or breach of contract claims. And since the money damages verdict was a general verdict, any of the surviving claims may support the verdict.
You must be logged in to post a comment.