economic development
Grand Traverse Band Has 145 Acres Placed Into Trust
From the Traverse City Record Eagle:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs last week issued a notice of decision that approved the band’s trust application for five parcels totaling just over 145 acres in Acme and Whitewater townships near Turtle Creek Casino on M-72.
Written Testimony in Senate Hearing on DOI Backlogs
From the Senate Indian Affairs Committee website:
THE HONORABLE CARL J. ARTMAN
Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, DC
THE HONORABLE ROBERT CHICKS
Mid-West Area Vice President, National Congress of American Indians; President, Stockbridge Munsee Band of Mohican Indians
Bowler, WI
THE HONORABLE GARY SVANDA
Council Member, City of Madera
Madera, CA
MR. DOUG NASH
Director, of Indian Estate Planning and Probating, Institute of Indian Estate Planning and Probate
Seattle, WA
Frank’s Landing Tobacco Sales Lawsuit Materials
Indianz coverage is here. Here are the materials. Once again, let it be known that Rule 19 is my favorite(!):
nisqually-v-gregoire-complaint
nisqually-motion-for-preliminary-injunction
squaxin-island-motion-to-dismiss
franks-landing-motion-to-dismiss
ICT Editorial on Fee to Trust Statute
From ICT:
The federal government’s recent actions involving its authority to make decisions on acquiring land in trust for tribal gaming purposes may inadvertently threaten the authority and duty of the secretary of the Interior Department to take land into trust for Indian tribes.
On April 29, the D.C. Circuit decided an innocuous case involving the secretary of Interior’s decision to take land into trust for the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (also known as the Gun Lake Band). It was the third such opinion in recent years involving Michigan Potawatomi Indian tribes, each brought by well-funded citizens groups opposing Indian gaming. The suits were mere harassment suits, intended to delay rather than prevent the opening of the Potawatomi gaming operations. Each of the suits brought similar claims.
Of import, one claim was that Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, the statute that authorizes the secretary to take land into trust for Indian tribes, was an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority. The first two D.C. Circuit panel decisions (2006 and 2007), involving the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians and the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians, rejected the constitutional challenge to Section 5 without much discussion or dissent. In fact, since 1995, at least three other federal appellate circuits have rejected the same kind of challenge to the statute, so this is unsurprising.
Fourth Part of Billings Gazette Special Report — Tribal Economies
From the Billings Gazette:
The Crow Tribe recently signed an innovative agreement with Montana and the federal government that will make it easier for banks to offer secured loans on the reservation. Essentially, it provides for seizure of personal property used as collateral when a loan is in default. (It does not apply to land held in trust for the tribe or its members.)
In 2004, the Crow Tribe adopted The Crow Finance Protection and Procedures Act, which makes it possible for banks to foreclose on trust property within the reservation. The catch is that at the foreclosure sale, the land can be sold only to the Crow Tribe or to a member of the tribe. If no eligible bidder can meet the price, the lender gets the beneficial title to the property but must continue to try to sell it to a qualified Crow buyer.
Differences in state and tribal law do come with some complications, but they aren’t barriers, said Mike Eakin, who works in the Billings office of Montana Legal Services.
Lewis & Clark Indigenous Economic Development Conference Podcast Now Available
Here.
May 1st, 2008
Business Law Symposium 2008
Indigenous Economic Development: Sustainability, Culture and Business Agenda
April 4, 2008
Spring Symposium 2008
This conference brings together scholars from around the country, most of whom are tribal citizens and experienced in economic development, to discuss the practical and the theoretical issues facing American Indian governments in their task to bring economic development to their reservations that is both profitable, sustainable, and culturally appropriate.
Billings Gazette Special Report on Tribal Sovereignty
From the Billings Gazette:
When the last of the bison herds disappeared in the early 1880s, Indian nations on the Northern Plains were reduced to poverty.
In Montana, where there are no high-flying gambling operations and big population centers, economic conditions for American Indians have been slow to change. Unemployment is rampant, and business opportunities are scarce.
Through various acts of Congress, tribes are contracting with the federal government to provide essential services to their people. But federal funds, static for years, are shrinking. Tribes are taking on more responsibilities than ever for the welfare of their people and are pursuing economic opportunities to support their efforts.
Missouri Courts Interpret Tribal Sovereign Immunity for First Time
The case is Ogden v. Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska. From the opinion:
In March of 2006, Larry Ogden, after communication with the tribal chairman of the “Iowa Tribe Executive Committee,” moved to Missouri to accept employment as manager of a truck stop near I-29 in Holt County, Missouri, known as the “Squaw Creek Eagles Nest Plaza.” Several months later, Ogden was terminated from employment. Ogden sued the “Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska” (“Iowa Tribe”) for breach of an employment agreement and for wrongful discharge. The Iowa Tribe filed a motion to dismiss the petition based upon tribal sovereign immunity. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Ogden appeals. We affirm.
Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Cash Advance — Rent a Tribe Case
We have written about this case before — the question of whether Cash Advance and others who are part-owned by Indian tribes can avoid suit from the Colorado AG for unfair consumer practices (yecch).
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision not to quash the subpoena directed against the tribe-owned Cash Advance defendant in this opinion — cash-advance-colorado-coa-opinion
The appellate briefs are here, and an additional amicus brief is here — amicus-brief-supporting-cash-advance (strangely, the brief doesn’t actually say who the amicus is…).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.