economic development

Arctic Law Symposium Articles Available Online

Victoria Sweet

Articles from the 2013 Arctic Law Symposium held at Michigan State University College of Law have been published in the Michigan State International Law Review. Included in this volume are several articles specifically addressing how Indigenous peoples may be impacted by the current changes and developments in the region including:

Closing the Citizenship Gap in Canada’s North: Indigenous Rights, Arctic Sovereignty, and Devolution in Nunavut
Tony Penikett and Adam Goldenberg

Risk, Rights and Responsibility: Navigating Corporate Responsibility and Indigenous Rights in Greenlandic Extractive Industry Development
Rutherford Hubbard

Legal Questions Regarding Mineral Exploration and Exploitation in Indigenous Areas
Susann Funderud Skogvang

Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources from a Human Rights Perspective: Natural Resources Exploitation and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Arctic
Dorothée Cambou and Stefaan Smis

Climate Change, Indigenous Peoples and the Arctic: The Changing Horizon of International Law
Sumudu Atapattu

Link to the the full issue here.

Link to previous coverage here.

Materials in New York v. Grand River Enterprises Six Nations & Native Wholesale Supply

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

45 GRE Six Nations Motion to Dismiss

48 NWS Motion to Dismiss

49 New York Opposition

New Study: “Indian Tribal Government Access to Tax-Exempt Bond Financing”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Edith Brashares and Siobhan O’Keefe have posted “Indian Tribal Government Access to Tax-Exempt Bond Financing” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

While prior research focuses on Federal assistance to Native American tribal governments through spending programs, we examine tax incentive use by tribes. Tribal governments can issue tax-exempt bonds where the interest rates are lower because the Federal government does not tax bondholder on the interest they receive. To provide context, we briefly summarize the tax rules for tax-exempt bonds and describe tribal tax-exempt borrowing between 1987 and 2010. These data have not been published previously. Unlike most studies of tax-exempt bonds that examine how much is borrowed, we start by modeling the decision of a tribal government to borrow using tax-exempt bonds. We find tribes with resources, either gaming income or royalties, but that have members in need are more likely to borrow using tax-exempt bonds. Of those tribes that do borrow, the amount increases with the interest rate spread relative to Treasuries, gaming income and per capita income.

Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. Jewell, Complaint and Accompanying Documents

Kate Fort

Complaint here.

May 1, 2013 Return of Compact Amendment Letter here.

April 5, 2013 Settlement Agreement here.

August 1, 2013 Disapproval Letter here.

Nov. 6, 2013 Disapproval letter here.

News coverage via The Oklahoman here.

American Public Media “Marketplace” Shows on Crow and Lummi Coal News

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Thanks to D.L.:

The American Public Media show “Marketplace” is doing a series on coal, and two of their stories have focused on Indian tribes.  The first, about coal mining on the Crow Reservation, is more about the tribal economy; but the second, about a proposed coal shipping terminal in Washington state, has some legal issues (whether treaty fishing rights might be used to defeat the proposed coal terminal).

Both stories can be found at http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/coal-play

Fletcher Paper on the Seminole Tribe and the Origins of Indian Gaming

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

At the invitation of Alex Pearl and the FIU Law Review to write a symposium piece on Florida Indian history and law, a challenge for me since I know very little about it, I came up with “The Seminole Tribe and the Origins of Indian Gaming.” Assuming the law review finds it publishable, it will appear in the FIU Law Review alongside the work of luminaries like Siegfriend Weissner and Sarah Krakoff.

Here is the abstract:

The Seminole Tribe of Florida has played perhaps the most important role in the origins and development of Indian gaming in the United States of any single tribe. The tribe opened the first tribally owned high stakes bingo hall in 1979. The tribe in 1981 was involved in one of the earliest lower court decisions forming the basis of the legal theory excluding most states from the regulation of high stakes bingo, a theory that Congress largely codified in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) years later. The tribe was a party to the Supreme Court decision in 1996 that radically altered the bargaining power between tribes and states over the negotiation and regulation of casino-style gaming under IGRA. And more recently, the tribe has been a leading participant in negotiations and litigation over the regulatory landscape of Indian gaming after the 1996 decision. The Tribe is one of the most successful Indian gaming tribes in the nation.

This paper traces that history, but also offers thoughts on how the culture and traditional governance structures of the Seminole Tribe played a part in its leadership role in the arena of Indian gaming.

Colorado COA Dismisses Colorado AG’s Appeal of Cash Advance Matter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Colorado v Cash Advance Colo. COA Opinion

Lower court opinion here.

Thurston County Attempt to Widen Chehalis Tribes’ Great Wolf Lodge Tax Dispute Fails

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County Board of Equalization (W.D. Wash.):

210 County Motion for Declaratory Judgment

217 Chehalis Response

218 DCT Order Denying County Motion

An excerpt:

On November 21, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for declaratory judgment requesting that the Court “enter a declaratory judgment that the property taxes on the non-permanent, removable business personal property are not preempted as a matter of law . . . .” Dkt. 210 at 8–9. On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff opposed the motion on the grounds that it is procedurally improper and seeks relief outside of the pleadings. Dkt. 217 at 4–8. The Court agrees with Plaintiff on both points because (1) the amended complaint for declaratory judgment seeks relief for improvements that are not removable (Dkt. 46, ¶ 19) and (2) “a party may not make a motion for declaratory relief, but rather, the party must bring an action for a declaratory judgment.”

Supreme Court Denies Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is today’s order list.

Cert petition was here.

Contract Breach Claim against Delaware Tribal Officials Survives in Pennsylvania Federal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Magyar v. Kennedy (E.D. Pa.):

11 Motion to Dismiss

12 Response

18 Reply

23 Motion to Dismiss Count 1

24 Response

31 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Count 1

An excerpt:

Thus, based upon an examination of the Second Amended Complaint and its Exhibits, we determine that Plaintiff has met his burden to convince us that Defendants acted beyond their official capacity and outside the scope of their authority when they terminated Plaintiff’s Agreements and failed to compensate Plaintiff for the services he rendered in June 2012. Accordingly, we conclude that the Second Amended Complaint alleges facts sufficient to persuade us that Defendants are not protected by sovereign immunity in connection with Count One of the Second Amended Complaint.