economic development – Page 60

State of Oregon Warning (and Fight) Against Tribal Payday Lenders

November 5, 2012Adrea Korthase

The consumer alert is here.

Story from KATU is here (thanks to J.B.). An excerpt:

This woman’s case – and thousands like it – is now at the center of a legal battle at the highest levels of the U.S. Government –a story that’s taken us from Portland, to the halls of Congress, to a dusty town in Oklahoma – and deep into the pages of one of the murkiest chapters in America’s history. Millions of dollars hangs in the balance as the rights of you, the consumer, are pitted against the rights of all Native Americans.

Their treaties with the United States are century-old binding contracts upheld by numerous court decisions. But the issue of tribal sovereignty is taking center stage in the fight to stop online loan sharks.

Recent previous post here.

Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Audio in Grand Canyon Skywalk — UPDATE

October 22, 2012October 22, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

News coverage from WaPo. More detail from HuffPo.

I will note that at the end of oral argument one of the Ninth Circuit judges found part of the Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC’s opening brief “offensive,” “histrionic,” and “vituperative.” There was a “big frown face on the opening brief.” Lots of frustration in this case.

Agee Institute Report on Economic Impact of Oklahoma Indian Tribes on State’s Economy

October 18, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

All Tribal Impact Report Final

From pechanga:

A new report says that Oklahoma’s 38 American Indian tribes have an annual economic impact of nearly $11 billion in the state. The study from Oklahoma City University’s Steven C. Agee Economic Research and Policy Institute found that more than 70 percent of the $10.8 billion impact comes from the tribes’ gambling operations.

Federal Magistrate Recommends Denial of Motion to Dismiss Tobacco Trafficking Charge arising in Indian Country

October 17, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in United States v. Nappi (W.D. N.Y.):

Nappi Motion to Dismiss

Federal Response

Magistrate R&R in US v Nappi

Federal Court Dismisses Suit over Coalbed Methane Ownership Dispute on Tribal Immunity Grounds

October 15, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Farmer Oil & Gas Properties v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe (D. Colo.):

DCT Order Granting Southern Ute Motion

Southern Ute Motion to Dismiss

Farmer Oil Response

Southern Ute Reply

EPA Record of Decision in MHA Nation Oil Refinery Project

October 12, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Defense Contractor Sues Dept. of Defense over SBA Sec. 8(a) Race-Based Contracting (Excluding Indian Tribes)

October 12, 2012October 12, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Rothe Development, Inc. v. Dept. of Defense (D. D.C.):

Rothe Complaint

An excerpt:

Congressional amendments in 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-272, § 18015, 100 Stat. 370) and 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-656, § 207, 102 Stat. 3861, as amended by Pub. L. No. 101-37, § 6, 103 Stat. 72) also added “Indian tribes” and “Native Hawaiian Organizations” to the races deemed presumptively socially disadvantaged by 15 U.S.C. § 631(f)(1). However, ROTHE does not challenge the classifications “Indian tribes” and “Native Hawaiian Organizations” in this action. ROTHE understands the distinction in law drawn between “Native American” as a racial classification, on one hand, and an entity the United States has treaty or trust obligations towards, such as an “Indian tribe” or a “Native Hawaiian Organization” on the other. Cf. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (legislation that singles out federally recognized Indian tribes is Constitutional “where the preference is reasonable and rationally designed to further Indian self-government”). ROTHE is only challenging the racial classification of section 8(a), which by definition includes only those groups currently classified by law as being “racial” groups: Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities to be determined by the SBA (to date, Subcontinent Asian Americans).

Update: It appears the court resolved these questions in favor of the constitutionality of Section 8(a) in another case:

DCT Order in Dynalantic Corp.