Here:
La Cuna de Aztlan Opening Brief
Oral argument audio here. Video here.
Lower court materials here.
cultural resources
Grant Christensen on Cultural Property as a Form of Collateral in a Secured Transaction Under the Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act
Grant Christensen has posted his paper, “Selling Stories or You Can’t Own This: Cultural Property as a Form of Collateral in a Secured Transaction Under the Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act,” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
The Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act was recently proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. This article takes the position that the model act, if adopted, will encourage economic development in Indian Country by creating a set of uniform rules which both non-Indians and Indians can utilize to promote lending. Critically – before it is widely adopted, this article implores the NCCUSL to consider including in the model act – language that would protect tribal cultural property; and in the absence of such language, encourages tribes to modify the act to accomplish this protection. The stakes include the potential loss of priceless real and personal, tangible and intangible, cultural property which itself form the linchpin of both tribal identity and cultural expression for many indigenous communities in the United States and beyond.
WaPo: “Interior secretary: It’s ‘surprising’ Redskins name not changed, but it’s not top priority for tribal leaders”
Here.
NARF Press Release: REDSKINS GROUP INFRINGES ON NARF TRADEMARK
REDSKINS GROUP INFRINGES ON NARF TRADEMARK
It has recently come to the attention of the Native American Rights Fund, also known as NARF, that a group variously calling itself “Native American Redskins Fans” and “Native American Redskins Family” is improperly holding itself out as “NARF,” in support of the continued use of the racially derogatory name used by the Washington D.C. National Football League franchise, and against which NARF has long battled.
This cynical use of NARF’s trademark has caused confusion both inside and outside of Indian Country, and NARF would like to set the record straight: NARF does not advocate, nor has it ever advocated, for the use of the name used by the Washington NFL football team.
For over twenty years, NARF has publicly denounced use of the name, supporting and participating directly in various legislative and litigation efforts to put an end to use of this offensive name. “Race-based stereotyping and behaviors in sports persist today,” said John Echohawk, NARF’s Executive Director, “including, in particular, the racially derogatory name of the ‘Washington Redskins’ professional football organization. NARF has long worked, and will continue to work, to put an end to this racial slur masquerading as a team name.”
Having been publicly known as NARF for over 40 years, NARF’s superior legal rights to use its name and trademarks (and to exclude others from doing so) cannot be questioned, and NARF will use all means available to protect its name from misappropriation by others. Legal counsel representing NARF have sent cease-and-desist letters demanding a halt to this infringement on a website misappropriating its “NARF” trademark, and reserving NARF’s rights to take legal action.
Founded in 1970, the Native American Rights Fund is the national Indian legal defense fund dedicated to asserting and defending the rights of Indian tribes, organizations and individuals nationwide. NARF’s legal advocacy is concentrated in five priority areas: the preservation of tribal existence; the protection of tribal natural resources; the promotion of Native American human rights; the accountability of governments to Native Americans; and the development of Indian law and educating the public about Indian rights, laws, and issues. See our website — http://www.narf.org.
Navajo Boy Sent Home for Having Long Hair on First Day of School
Here is one of many articles.
And here is what the Fifth Circuit has already said about such nonsense regarding the treatment of another 5-year-old in Texas:
A Native American boy and his parents challenge a school district’s requirement that he wear his long hair in a bun on top of his head or in a braid tucked into his shirt. We agree with the district court that the requirement offends a sincere religious belief and hold it invalid under Texas law.
And as @NativeApprops pointed out, one might also check out the name of the district and the mascot where this happened.
Split Ninth Circuit Panel Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Repatriation of “La Jolla Skeletons” to Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee
Here is the opinion in White v. University of California.
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action under the Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act on the basis that the affected tribes and their representatives were indispensable parties and could not be joined in the action.
The action concerned the “La Jolla remains,” two human skeletons discovered during an archaeological excavation on the property of the Chancellor’s official residence at the University of California-San Diego. The tribes claimed the right to compel repatriation of the La Jolla remains to one of the Kumeyaay Nation’s member tribes. Repatriation was opposed by the plaintiffs, University of California professors who wished to study the remains. The professors sought a declaration that the remains were not “Native American” within the meaning of NAGPRA, which provides a framework for establishing ownership and control of newly discovered Native American remains and funerary objects, as well as cultural items already held by certain federally funded museums and educational institutions.
The panel held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring suit because if the La Jolla remains were repatriated,
the plaintiffs would suffer a concrete injury that was fairly traceable to the challenged action. In addition, this injury was likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.The panel held that NAGPRA does not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity because Congress did not unequivocally express that purpose. The panel held that the “Repatriation Committee,” a tribal organization, was entitled to tribal sovereign immunity as an “arm of the tribe.” In addition, the Repatriation Committee did not waive its sovereign immunity by filing a separate lawsuit against the University or by incorporating under California law.
The panel held that the tribes and the Repatriation Committee were necessary parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1) and were indispensable under Rule 19(b). In addition, the “public rights” exception to Rule 19 did not apply. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the action.
Dissenting, Judge Murguia agreed with the majority that the plaintiffs had Article III standing, that NAGPRA did not abrogate the sovereign immunity of the tribes, and that the Repatriation Committee was entitled to sovereign immunity. She would hold, however, that the Committee was not a necessary and indispensable party because it was neither necessary nor indispensable to resolution of the question whether the University properly determined that the La Jolla remains were Native American within the meaning of NAGPRA.
Briefs are here.
Useful Scholarly Materials on RFRA, the Eagle Act, and Hobby Lobby
I urge readers to check out two papers by Kati Kovacs at Rutgers Law School. She formerly worked in DOJ ENRD. She just published Eagles, Indian Tribes, and the Free Exercise of Religion is available online, http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2863&context=llr, and has a forthcoming piece on Hobby Lobby and the Eagle Act, entitled Hobby Lobby and the Zero-Sum Game, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2484613.
Fifth Circuit Holds Eagle Act Regulations May Violate RFRA
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
Appellants filed suit against the Department of the Interior (the
“Department”) seeking a declaration of rights that the Department’s enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (the “MBTA”) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (the “Eagle Protection Act”) violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) because it prohibits American Indians who are not members of federally recognized tribes from possessing bald and golden eagle feathers. The district court granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Department’s implementation of the Eagle Protection Act was narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest. Because we find that the Department did not provide sufficient evidence that the policy of limiting permits for the possession of eagle feathers to members of federally recognized tribes survives the scrutiny required by RFRA, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Briefs here.
NYTs Article on German Museums and American Indian Scalps
Here.
Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams — Uranium Mining Dispute
Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (D. Ariz.):
126 Grand Canyon Trust Response
131 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
Earlier post on this matter here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.