Request for Proposals – Court Assessments in Alaska-AVCP & California

As a courtesy notice, the below Request for Proposals are available on the Federal Business Opportunities website. Please note, they are advertised as 100% Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise Set-aside in accordance with the Buy Indian Act.

  • RFQ No. A16PS00308, closes 4/25/2016, BIA Office of Justice Services District IX (California) Tribal Court Assessments
  • RFQ No. A16PS00309, closes 4/25/2016, BIA Office of Justice Services District IX (California) Tribal Court Assessments
  • RFQ No. A16PS00310, closes 4/25/2016, BIA Office of Justice Services District IX (Alaska – AVCP) Tribal Court Assessment

Please direct all questions to the Contracting Officer listed on the solicitation.

Tribal NLRB Background Materials

Here are the materials relevant to Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government v. NLRB.

Supreme Court cert stage briefs

Little River Petition and Appendix COMBINED

USET Amicus Brief

Final CO-UMUT Amicus Cert Petition – Saginaw Chippewa and LRB

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

CNIGA Amicus

NCAI Amicus

Michigan Amicus Brief

US Cert Opposition

Little River Reply

Sixth Circuit En Banc Stage Continue reading

Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit by Borrower’s Suit against Assignee of Tribal Sovereign Lender

Here are the materials in Goldenstein v. Repossessors Inc.:

CA3 Opinion

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

9th Cir. Cites Standing in Dismissal for La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. DOI

Doc. 47 – Memorandum

Excerpt:

Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing to pursue a claim under Sections 1702 and 1705 of the EPAct, 42 U.S.C. §§ 16512, 16516. To demonstrate individual standing, a plaintiff must “have suffered or be imminently threatened with a concrete and particularized ‘injury in fact’ that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1386 (2014) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).  Even if we assume Plaintiffs adequately pled injury-in-fact and redressability, they have not sufficiently alleged causation. Plaintiffs make a conclusory allegation that the Genesis Solar Energy Project (“Project”) would not have gone forward without the federal loan guarantee, but they allege no supporting facts. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that their alleged injury—suffering harm to environmental and cultural resources at the Project site—is “fairly traceable” to the Federal Defendants’ approval of the loan guarantee for the Project.

Amended Ramah Findings and Conclusions

Download Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law here.

Link to previous coverage here.

Clarkson, Spilde, and Claw Nez on Tribal Online Commerce

Gavin Clarkson, Kate Spilde, and Carma Claw Nez have posted “Online Sovereignty: The Law and Economics of Tribal Electronic Commerce” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

In 1886, the US Supreme Court wrote that, for Indian tribes, “the people of the states where they are found are often their deadliest enemies.” Recently, state agencies and regulators have continued that tradition of hostility by improperly attempting to regulate electronic commerce businesses operated by tribal governments that are more properly subject to regulations established by tribal law and subject to federal oversight. Despite the fact that these online businesses operate exclusively under tribal law and make their tribal affiliation clear to customers, certain state regulators have demanded absolute compliance with state law, even when such laws are from states thousands of miles away. Not only does this overreaching by uninformed state regulators limit the products available to consumers but it also severely undercuts on-reservation economic development, imperils tribal electronic commerce, and challenges basic notions of tribal sovereignty.

Businesses and consumers entering into commercial contracts rely heavily on consistency and predictability in contracting, including when the parties mutually agree to apply tribal law or utilize tribal courts to resolve disputes. Uniform interpretation and enforcement of such agreements are critical to ensuring continued investment in tribal businesses. With over one quarter of American Indians living in poverty, nearly twice the national average, it has never been more important to promote confidence in the Indian economy. When courts do not give full force and effect to contracting parties’ desire to resolve their private disputes using tribal courts and tribal law, this confidence is threatened. While it is unclear how this controversy will ultimately play out, one thing is certain: states are not only undermining tribal innovation and harming tribal economies but also attacking tribal sovereignty itself.

Perhaps lost in the legal rancor, however, are the very real human and economic consequences of the loss of tribal revenues from e-commerce business, as well as the potential damage to tribal e-commerce as a whole. In this article, we present results of our empirical research into the economic impact of tribal online lending in Indian Country. We first frame the issue with a brief summary of the legal foundations for tribal e-commerce and tribal lending in particular. We then present several case studies of tribes that have engaged in online lending, focusing on the direct economic impact to those tribal communities. We conclude the article with policy arguments as to why state and federal regulators should support rather than suppress tribal e-commerce, including tribal small-dollar online lending.

E.D. Pennsylvannia Dismisses Claim Against Tribal Lender

Download memorandum here.

Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss in Finn v. Great Plains Lending (E.D. Penn. Feb. 23, 2016) for lack of jurisdiction.

Sonosky Press Release Regarding Federal Court Grants Final Approval to $940M Class Action Settlement with Indian Tribes

Download press release here.

Judge Approves Ramah Class Action Settlement

Ramah Final Approval Order Feb 24 2016

Ramah Final Approval Opinion Feb 24 2016

Dear Respected Tribal Leaders:

Earlier today, Judge Parker issued a final order approving the $940,000,000 Ramah class action settlement against the BIA.  We have attached the Order and Opinion. 

Congratulations to all of Indian Country!  It has been an honor and a privilege to be part of the team representing you and we look forward to implementing the settlement as quickly as possible.

As always, please feel free to contact us with any questions. 

Respectfully,

Lloyd, Don, and Lia

Navajo Nation RFP for Contract Attorney

Download RFP here.

The Navajo Nation Department of Justice is requesting proposals from interested attorneys/firms to provide legal services to the Navajo Nation Office of the Controller, the Navajo Nation Investment Committee (the “Investment Committee”), and the Attorney General in connection with financial and corporate matters and applicable Navajo Nation laws and policies.  Experience in the fields of Corporate, Finance, Real Estate, Tax and Navajo law is preferred.  Demonstration of these qualifications should include a description of your firm’s depth of experience in these fields and the nature of legal services you have provided in these fields over time.  Proposals must be received by email no later than 5:00 p.m. MST on Friday, March 4, 2016.  No Late Proposals Will Be Accepted.  Please send proposals and/or questions to: Lena Kee, Legal Secretary, at lkee@nndoj.org.