The Building Strong Sovereign Nations Tribal Governance Training Conference is quickly approaching. It’s happening on May 19th and 20th at the Odawa Casino Resort in Petoskey. Here’s a link to the registration page.
economic development
National Center of American Indian Enterprise Development honors Swinomish Chairman Brian Cladoosby and others
The National Center of American Indian Enterprise Development will be honoring Swinomish Chairman Brian Cladoobsy with its American Indian Tribal Leadership Award at its annual economic summit and trade fair in Las Vegas. Others honored include David Melton, Clara Pratte, Kurt Luger, U.S. Senator Max Baucus, Kathy Meyer, Karen Jensen, and several entities. The summit and trade fair takes place today through March 17. More information is here.
Kyle Whyte on Environmental Justice and Indigenous Tourism
Kyle Whyte has posted his paper, “An Environmental Justice Framework for Indigenous Tourism,” published in the Journal of Environmental Philosophy.
Here is the abstract:
Environmental tourism is a growing practice in indigenous communities worldwide. As members of indigenous communities, what environmental justice framework should we use to evaluate these practices? I argue that, while some of the most relevant and commonly discussed norms are fair compensation and participative justice, we should also follow Robert Figueroa’s claim that “recognition justice” is relevant for environmental justice. I claim that from Figueroa’s analysis there is a “norm of direct participation,” which requires all environmental tourism practices to feature a forum for meaningful representation and consideration. This claim motivates a distinction between practices that should be termed “mutually advantageous exploitation” and those that should be termed “environmental coalition development.” We need to ask ourselves whether we should continue to tolerate mutually advantageous exploitation and how we can increase the number of practices that develop coalitions.
Updated Materials in Chehalis Tax Case
New Book on Navajo Tribal Labor Relations
David Kamper has published “The Work of Sovereignty: Tribal Labor Relations and Self-Determination at the Navajo Nation.” Here is the book’s website.
And the description:
Who is shaping the future of economic development in Indian Country? Who has a say in tribal economic growth and who benefits? What role do American Indian workers play in shaping how tribal economies and enterprises work? What would it mean to conceive of indigenous self-determination from the vantage point of work and workers? The Work of Sovereignty addresses these vital questions. It explores the political, economic, and cultural forces that structure and influence indigenous economic development, giving special attention to the perspectives and priorities of the indigenous working people who build tribal futures with their everyday labor. Kamper argues for the importance of recognizing tribal labor relations as a factor in indigenous economic enterprises from gaming to health care and beyond. Although most research on tribal sovereignty and economic development focuses on legal theory and governmental operations, The Work of Sovereignty centers on the people who make sovereignty work. It presents a thoughtful, in-depth look at the ways labor relations play out in Indian Country, how tribal employees view their relationships with their bosses and tribal enterprises, and how this view connects to their enactment of indigenous self-determination.
D.C Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Seneca Indian’s Challenge to PACT Act
Here is the opinion in Gordon v. Holder.
An excerpt:
Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Gordon is a Seneca Indian and a delivery seller of tobacco products. As a delivery seller, Gordon distributes his products by mail, rather than through abrick-and-mortar retail store. See 15 U.S.C. § 375(5)–(6). Prior to the PACT Act, ninety-five percent of Gordon’s business came from the sale of tobacco by internet and phone. But since the Act’s passage, Gordon claims he has lost almost all of his business due to the remedial measures Congress enacted.
Tenth Circuit Denies En Banc Review in BMG v. Chukchansi; Expect Cert Petition Soon
Here is that order: Order Denying Petition for En Banc Rehearing.
Here are our earlier posts: en banc materials, and Tenth Circuit panel materials.
News Coverage of Payday Lenders and Indian Tribal Enterprises
Here are two major articles from the last few days:
Anthony Broadman on Tribal Bankruptcy Law
From Casino Enterprise Management:
For businesses unable to pay creditors, bankruptcy can offer rebirth or an orderly demise. In either case, the federal bankruptcy process can protect debtors from their creditors, giving “to the honest but unfortunate debtor … a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of pre-existing debt.” (Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 244 (1934).) In other words, filing bankruptcy can be a valuable tool in the life of a business concern. But it is one tool that has not been used widely by tribal enterprises, let alone tribal governmental gaming operations.
The federal bankruptcy code dictates how businesses die and how their creditors divide what is left. Its use, like the use of corporate codes at the inception of a business, goes to the heart of what it means to be a firm in a particular jurisdiction. So it is somewhat curious that tribal businesses are prevented, either practically or legally, from using tribal law to order their affairs in bankruptcy. At the very least, it runs counter to the right of tribes “to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” (Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220 (1959).)
The current economic climate has triggered speculation regarding how tribal gaming operations would navigate the bankruptcy process. Fanned by the bankruptcy of Greektown Casino Hotel (once partially owned by a tribe) and the Wells Fargo/Lac du Flambeau debacle, that speculation, coupled with cases abrogating tribal sovereign immunity in the bankruptcy context, suggests that tribes should at least attempt to control their exposure to insolvency by (1) legislating tribal approaches to bankruptcy and (2) contracting with potential future creditors and potentially tribal debtors regarding a common treatment for bankruptcy in Indian country. If federal bankruptcy laws do not work for tribe-owned businesses, tribal bankruptcy laws should.
It is likely that, if implemented, both approaches would be challenged. A tribal bankruptcy code would be attacked as infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal bankruptcy courts. Agreements with potential future debtors and creditors would be attacked based on tribal court jurisdiction over such entities. Both challenges may be surmountable—and worth the trouble. Non-Indian creditors might even eventually find tribal bankruptcy to be quicker, more efficient and more predictable than attempts to fit tribal businesses into the typical bankruptcy process.
Minn. Supreme Court Affirms Limited Worker’s Comp. Jurisdiction over Indian Country
A divided Minnesota Supreme Court (4-3, at least on the jurisdiction question) held in Swenson v. Nickaboine that the state worker’s comp statute applies to an on-reservation, Indian-owned business where the worker in question was a non-Indian.
Here is an excerpt from the dissent:
The majority holds that Minnesota had subject matter jurisdiction based on 40 U.S.C. § 3172. But we held in Tibbetts v. Leech Lake Reservation Business Committee, 397 N.W.2d 883, 888 (Minn. 1986), that in section 3172, Congress did not subject the tribe to jurisdiction in Minnesota courts. The majority distinguishes Tibbetts because that case involved a workers‟ compensation claim brought by a tribal member against a tribe; whereas this case involves an injured worker who is not a tribal member and an employer that is owned by a tribal member but is not a tribal corporation. But holding that Congress did not waive the sovereign immunity of the tribe in section 3172, as we did in Tibbetts, does not provide a basis for the majority‟s conclusion that Congress, in section 3172, vested subject matter jurisdiction in the state to enforce its workers‟ compensation laws. In my view, our discussion in Tibbetts supports the opposite result on the jurisdictional question.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.