Here is the unpublished opinion:
An excerpt:
The superior court’s judgment dismissing the Tribe’s public nuisance claim is reversed. Although reversing, this decision does not address the merits of the public nuisance claim but, instead, addresses only the issues properly presented and decided on this appeal from the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
News coverage.
Here:
UNSR Letter of Allegation Indigenous Prisoners Religious Freedom
Excerpt:
A pattern of restricting American indigenous prisoners’ religious freedoms is currently occurring throughout the United States. In recent years, states have issued new regulations curtailing the ability of American indigenous prisoners to possess religious items, participate in religious ceremonies, and otherwise engage in traditional practices. Further, changes in regulations continue to move forward absent meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples.
- California: On February 21, 2013, the Department of Corrections issued an “emergency” regulation significantly limiting prisoners’ religious property.[i] Effective immediately, prisoners no longer have access to sacred medicines like kinninnick, copal, and osha root, cloth for prayer ties, beads, pipes and pipe bags, and numerous other traditional items. The process for getting religious items approved was also made significantly more burdensome. Because the regulations constituted an emergency regulatory action, they went into effect immediately, without any consultation whatsoever with American indigenous peoples or opportunity for public comment.
- Texas: Prison authorities recently changed regulations for an American indigenous prisoners’ unit, significantly restricting ceremonial participation. American indigenous prisoners are no longer allowed to participate directly in pipe ceremonies, smudge indoors, keep locks of hair from deceased relatives, or perform important ceremonies such as the Wiping Away the Tears ceremony.[ii] Texas prison guards are also known to engage in overt racism toward indigenous prisoners. The media reports that on January 27, 2013, prison guards searched an indigenous prisoner’s cell, handling his medicine bag. When the prisoner stated that the guards were not supposed to touch his sacred items, a guard said “I don’t give a shit,” and that “being an Indian didn’t make him special.”[iii]
- Montana: American indigenous prisoners in Montana are currently challenging en masse strip searches conducted prior to sweat lodge ceremonies as well as the confiscation or prohibition of smudge tobacco, antlers, herbs, and other sacred materials.[iv] The state of Montana issued an investigatory report in 2009 confirming almost all of the allegations as well as describing the derogatory treatment of indigenous prisoners by guards.[v]
- South Dakota: American indigenous peoples comprise 27 percent of the South Dakota prison population, the highest proportion of any state in the country.[vi] On October 19, 2009, the Department of Corrections extended a ban on tobacco to indigenous religious uses. Indigenous prisoners were no longer allowed to use tobacco in sweat lodge ceremonies, pipe ceremonies, or for prayer ties and flags. When a federal district court held the ban violated federal law, prison authorities were still unable to agree with prisoners on an accommodation, forcing the court to issue a remedial order.[vii] South Dakota has appealed the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Washington: In 2010, the Washington Department of Corrections barred almost all American indigenous prisoners’ religious practices, banned tobacco, reclassified sacred medicines such as sage and sweet grass as non-religious, prohibited foods for traditional meals such as frybread and buffalo, disallowed children from attending summer prison pow wows, and altered regulations so that certain religious items could no longer be securely stored. After ten tribes petitioned the governor, the Department of Corrections reversed course, consulting with tribal leaders about reforms and reaching an accommodation to restore American indigenous prisoners’ religious rights.[viii] Events in Washington demonstrate both the larger pattern of rising restrictions on indigenous prisoners’ rights as well as the importance of consultation with American indigenous peoples concerning administrative measures that affect them. That state-tribal consultation and reform effort is what gave rise to Huy.
[i] State of California Office of Administrative Law, Notice of Approval of Emergency Regulatory Action, http://www.oal.ca.gov/res/docs/pdf/emergency_postings/2013-0206-01EON_App.pdf.
[ii] Appellant’s Opening Brief, Chance v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, No. 12-41015 (January 14, 2013), https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/chance-opening-brief-filed.pdf.
[iii] Brian Daffron, “Inmate’s Religious Rights Allegedly Violated Within Texas Prison System,” Indian Country Today (March 8, 2013), http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/03/08/inmates-religious-rights-allegedly-violated-within-texas-prison-system-148058.
[iv] Knows His Gun v. Montana, 866 F.Supp.2d 1235 (D. Mont. 2012), http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/documents/knows_his_gun.html.
[v] Montana Department of Corrections Investigation Team, “Investigation into Complaints from Native American Inmates at the Crossroads Correctional Center, Shelby, Montana,” May 14, 2009, Part 1: http://www.aclumontana.org/images/stories/documents/montanaprisonproject/crossroadsdocinvestigation1.pdf, Part 2: http://www.aclumontana.org/images/stories/documents/montanaprisonproject/crossroadsdocinvestigation2.pdf.
[vi] Native Am. Council of Tribes v. Weber, No. Civ. 09-4182, 2012 WL 4119652 (D.S.D. Sept. 19, 2012), https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/dct-remedial-order.pdf.
[vii] Id.; Remedial Order, Native Am. Council of Tribes v. Weber, Civ. 09-4182-KES (D. S.D. 2013), https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/dct-remedial-order.pdf.
[viii] Gabriel S. Galanda, “Native American Prisoners Obtain Religious Freedom,” King County Bar Association Bar Bulletin (July 2012), https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=07&Year=2012&AID=article1.htm.
Here:
Excerpts:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Native American Bar Association calls upon the United States, all fifty American states and the District of Columbia – including federal and state executive, agency, legislative, corrections and judicial officials and employees – to:
(a) Take all reasonable and any least restrictive steps to commend, support and facilitate incarcerated American Indigenous Peoples’ freedom to believe, express and exercise traditional indigenous religion,
(b) Denounce or cease any unduly burdensome or patently illegal or illegitimate federal, state or local government restriction upon incarcerated American Indigenous Peoples’ freedom to believe, express and exercise traditional indigenous religion, and
(c) Explore how federal, state and American indigenous governments can jointly develop and advance shared penological goals in regard to incarcerated American Indigenous Peoples.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Native American Bar Association calls upon the American Bar Association, Federal Bar Association and state and local bar associations, the National Congress of American Indians, regional inter-tribal associations and individual American indigenous governments, the United States Attorney General and Department of Justice, the American Correctional Association and American Association of State Correctional Administrators, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to also formally call upon the United States, all fifty American states and the District of Columbia, to:
(a) Take all reasonable and any least restrictive steps to commend, support and facilitate incarcerated American Indigenous Peoples’ freedom to believe, express and exercise traditional indigenous religion,
(b) Denounce or cease any unduly burdensome or patently illegal or illegitimate federal, state or local government restriction upon incarcerated American Indigenous Peoples’ freedom to believe, express and exercise traditional indigenous religion, and
(c) Explore how federal, state and American indigenous governments can jointly develop and advance shared penological goals in regard to incarcerated American Indigenous Peoples.
Judge Caputo (Mid. Dist. Penn.) entered an order granting a complete summary judgment in favor of Bill and Richard Thorpe and the Sac and Fox Nation in the litigation to repatriate the remains of Jim Thorpe pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
The judge concluded that NAGPRA applies to the remains of Jim Thorpe and to the Borough, and he also ruled that the passage of time between the enactment of NAGPRA and the filing of this case did not prevent a repatriation. This is a very significant ruling under NAGPRA, and it should be helpful to tribes in the future because it addresses and rejects some so-called defenses to NAGPRA that could be used to impede repatriation efforts.
Update w/ materials:
The arbitration decision can be found here. The Respondent has filed a complaint in federal court to stay the arbitration decision, which we will try to obtain. A snippet of the arbitration decision:
The Complainant is an Indian Tribe (termed a “Native Sovereign Nation” in more recent governmental documents) that is recognized by the Federal Government of the United States of America. The Complainant occupies a tribal reservation in and around the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River in the State of Arizona. It is undisputed that the Complainant is a legal entity that is competent, among other things, to engage in commerce and to own and use trademarks in commerce.
Since the 1950s, tourism has been the Complainant’s principal economic activity, commercialized through tribally owned enterprises. Despite the fact that there are no roads leading to the portion of the tribal reservation where world-famous waterfalls are located, some 20,000 tourists arrive annually on foot or on horseback, or by helicopter. The Complainant’s “Havasupai Tourism Enterprise” provides tourism services such as food, lodging, and guided horseback excursions and operates the “Havasupai Lodge”, the “Havasupai Tribal Café”, the “Havasupai Trading Post”, and campgrounds. The Complainant’s official website is found at “www.havasupai-nsn.gov”. . . .
The Respondent has since used the Domain Name for commercial gain, for paid advertising relating to Grand Canyon tours and lodging and other services, some of which compete with those offered by the Complainant. The Respondent has fostered a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks, by using the same Domain Name incorporating those marks that was formerly used by the Complainant itself, misleadingly displaying the Complainant’s name on the associated website and the Complainant’s contact information on the “Contact” page of that website, and providing no identification of the Respondent or disclaimer of affiliation with the Complainant. The Panel concludes that these facts fit the paradigm of bad faith described in the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv), as an attempt to mislead Internet users for commercial gain.
Here.
By Chief Joseph Brings Plenty, a former chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, teaches Lakota culture at the Takini School on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation.
Here.
An excerpt:
The Néret-Minet auction house in Paris says that its sale, on April 12, will be one of the largest auctions of Hopi artifacts ever, and it estimates that it will bring in $1 million. Many of the objects are more than 100 years old and carry estimates of $10,000 to $35,000. The auction house says that among the spirits represented are the Crow Mother, the Little Fire God and the Mud Head Clown.
“Sacred items like this should not have a commercial value,” said Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma, director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office in Kykotsmovi, Ariz. “The bottom line is we believe they were taken illegally.”
Here. Thanks to Ezra for this.
An excerpt:
How would you feel about a wine called “Khoran?” Apparently, the word “Khoran” is Armenian for altar, which is why a company sought to trademark “Khoran” for wine in the United States. But should such a trademark be registered by the US government when, being phonetically equivalent to the sacred text of Islam, it may offend Muslims when used to denote an alcoholic beverage? In this case, the trademark was refused registration by the US trademark office.
Should a trademark application for jeans called “Jesus Jeans” be treated any differently? In the US and European Union, this registration was allowed, however, China, Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Cuba, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have all refused the trademark, and Britain’s trademark office rejected its as “morally offensive to the public”.
What should we do about offensive trademarks? Granted, this is not the biggest problem that plagues us today and there are very few offensive trademarks that are still in use. Perhaps the most obvious thing to do is to vote with our dollars. That is, generally the market will correct the problem since merchants usually do not want to offend their customers.
And yet there still are some trademarks out there that offend. And some of them offend deeply. One of those trademarks is “Redskins”, which is the trademark for the professional American football team in Washington, DC.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.