California COA Vacates RLUIPA Judgment Favoring Indian Prisoner

Here is the opinion:

In re Rhodes

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Affirms Felony Sentence for Eagle Acts Violation

Here is the opinion in United States v. Crooked Arm.

GAO Report on Human Trafficking of Indigenous Women

Here is “HUMAN TRAFFICKING: Action Needed to Identify the Number of Native American Victims Receiving Federally-funded Services.”

Summary:

All four federal agencies that investigate or prosecute human trafficking in Indian country—the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO)—are required to record in their case management systems whether a human trafficking offense was involved in the case. With the exception of ICE, these agencies are also required to record in their case management systems whether the crime took place in Indian country. ICE officials explained that the agency does not record this information because, unlike BIA and the FBI, ICE is not generally involved in criminal investigations in Indian country. Typically, ICE would only conduct an investigation in Indian country if specifically invited by a tribe to do so. Further, with the exception of BIA, these agencies do not require their agents or attorneys to collect or record Native American status of victims in their cases due to concerns about victim privacy and lack of relevance of the victim’s race to the substance of the investigation or prosecution.

The Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Homeland Security (DHS) administered at least 50 grant programs from fiscal years 2013 through 2016 that could help address Native American human trafficking. For example, 21 of these grant programs, which were administered by DOJ and HHS, could be used to provide services to Native American human trafficking victims. However, the total number of Native American victims who received services under these grant programs is unknown. HHS is developing a data collection tool that grantees can use to report information on human trafficking victims served, including Native American status of victims. DOJ’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) requires grantees to report Native American status of victims served, but not by type of crime. DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) do not require grantees to collect and report Native American status of victims served. However, in fiscal year 2017, OVC began providing recipients of human trafficking-specific grant programs the option to report the race or Native American status of victims served. While Native American status may not generally be a factor for determining whether a victim can receive services, it may be a factor for determining how best to assist this particular demographic. According to the 2013-2017 Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States, expanding human trafficking data collection and research efforts for Native Americans and other vulnerable populations is an area for improvement for the federal government. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that quality information should be used to achieve objectives based on relevant data from reliable sources. Without collecting data on the Native American status of victims served, federal agencies will not know the extent to which they are achieving government-wide strategic goals to provide and improve services to vulnerable populations, including Native American human trafficking victims.

PDF

AG Sessions Orders Review of Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement

Here:

Sessions memo

Eighth Circuit Holds in Criminal Jurisdiction Matter Red Lake Reservation Not Diminished by 1905 Act

Here are the materials in United States v. Jackson:

Opinion

Appellant Brief

US Brief

Red Lake Amicus Brief

Reply Brief

Prior opinion in this case here.

Washington COA Rejects Snoqualmoo Indian Treaty Rights to Defense to Elk Harvest

Here is the opinion in State v. Snyder:

Opinion

An excerpt:

In 1974, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, as affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, took continuing jurisdiction over fishing disputes arising from the Treaty of Point Elliot and other treaties. Since then, the federal courts have not only interpreted these treaties but continue to supervise their application. The supreme court has held that the lower federal court rulings in this matter bind the State, state courts, private individuals like the Snyders, and organizations like the Snoqualmoo Tribe. We see no reason why we should not follow this guidance in the case of hunting rights.

Briefs:

Incarcerated Cobell-Eligible Beneficiary’s Federal Trust Claims May Proceed

Here are the materials in Godfrey v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

1 Complaint

8 US Motion to Dismiss

12 Response

15 DCT Order

Federal Court Suppresses Defendant’s Statements to IHS Worker in Presence of Tribal Police

Here are the materials in United States v. Walsh (D. Ariz.):

34 Motion to Preclude

44 Response

46 Reply

90 DCT Suppression Order

Minnesota COA Remands Off-Rez Treaty Rights Case to State District Court

Here are the materials in State of Minnesota v. Northrup:

Order – Certifying Question

Statement – Case – Appellant

Order – Jurisdiction Questioned

Memorandum – Informal – Respondent

Memorandum – Informal – Appellant

Order – Dismiss – Not Stipulated, Entire Case

News coverage here.

Haudenosaunee CCTA Defendant May Not Use Indian Law as a Defense to Cigarette Trafficking Charge

Here are the materials in United States v. Tarbell (N.D.N.Y.):

24 Motion in Limine re Indian Cigarettes

29 Response

47 DCT Order on Motions in Limine