Education

Full Panel of the Sixth Circuit Strikes Down Prop 2, Michigan’s Anti-Affirmative Action Amendment.

Kate Fort

A split of the Sixth Circuit upheld the 3 judge panel. Our previous coverage of Prop. 2 here.

Here.

COLE, J., delivered the opinion of court in which MARTIN, DAUGHTREY, MOORE, CLAY, WHITE, STRANCH, and DONALD, JJ., joined; and BATCHELDER, C. J., and GIBBONS, ROGERS, SUTTON, COOK, and GRIFFIN, JJ., joined in Part II.B and C. BOGGS, J. (pp. 37–40), delivered a separate dissenting opinion, in which BATCHELDER, C. J., joined. GIBBONS (pp. 41–57), delivered a separate dissenting opinion, in which BATCHELDER, C. J., and ROGERS, SUTTON, and COOK, JJ., joined, and GRIFFIN, J., joined with the exception of Part III. ROGERS (pg. 58) delivered a separate dissenting opinion, in which COOK, J., joined. SUTTON (pp. 59–69), delivered a separate dissenting opinion in which BATCHELDER, C. J., and BOGGS and COOK, JJ., joined. GRIFFIN, J. (pp. 70–74), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

A student seeking to have her family’s alumni connections considered in her application to one of Michigan’s esteemed public universities could do one of four things to have the school adopt a legacy-conscious admissions policy: she could lobby the admissions committee, she could petition the leadership of the university, she could seek to influence the school’s governing board, or, as a measure of last resort, she could initiate a statewide campaign to alter the state’s constitution. The same cannot be said for a black student seeking the adoption of a constitutionally permissible race-conscious admissions policy. That student could do only one thing to effect change: she could attempt to amend the Michigan Constitution—a lengthy, expensive, and arduous process—to repeal the consequences of Proposal 2. The existence of such a comparative structural burden undermines the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court on this issue and find Proposal 2 unconstitutional. We AFFIRM the denial of the University Defendants’ motion to be dismissed as parties, and we AFFIRM the grant of the Cantrell Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to Russell.

HEARTH ACT CLE

Matthew Campbell1 Comment


New Mexico Indian Law Section CLE: An Introduction to the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act (HEARTH Act)

State Bar Center, Albuquerque

Thursday, November 1, 2012

8:15 a.m.

3.2 General CLE Credits

Followed by lunch and the N.M. State Bar Indian Law Section Annual Meeting

Description: This program provides an introduction to the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act, which was signed into law on July 30, 2012. The Act will give tribal governments the discretion to lease restricted lands for residential, business, agricultural, public, religious, educational, or recreational purposes without needing the approval of the Secretary of the Interior if the tribal governments develop and implement their own leasing regulations. This program will look at the future of leasing tribal lands and discuss whether the Act will encourage economic growth, promote community development in Indian country, and support tribal self-determination.

The agenda and registration information can be found here.

If you would like to watch a webcast of the CLE, which took place today, you can do so here.

Fletcher on Native America Calling this Friday on Affirmative Action

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. The program description:

Friday, October 26, 2012 – Affirmative Action in Education:
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education. This issue is something that has many in Indian Country concerned. With this in mind we ask, is diversity in college admissions a right Native students should be afforded? Can Native students still expect a quality college education if their test scores and academics aren’t measured equally to non-native students from more affluent backgrounds? What will the future look like for Native college hopefuls if the Supreme Court decides for or against? We’ll explore these questions and more as we discuss the Supreme Court, Affirmative Action, and the future of Native College students.

Amazing NYTs Article about the Kalamazoo Promise

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Progressive Indians tribes should take notice.

Professor Hunter Receives UCLA’s Native Nations Distinguished Alumnus Award

Ann Tweedy

More information is here.

Window Rock School District Sues to Enjoin Navajo Labor Commission Actions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint.

Here are the materials in a similar case, Red Mesa USD v. Yellowhair, decided in 2010.

N.D. Supreme Court Issues Opinions in Fighting Sioux Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

News coverage here, via Pechanga.

From the coverage:

The North Dakota Supreme Court today declined to address the constitutional issue raised by the State Board of Higher Education, which claimed that a law requiring UND to keep the nickname improperly intrudes on the board’s authority.

A slim majority of the court was ready to take up the constitutional issue but was blocked by the opposition of two justices and the requirement that such decisions require the support of four of the court’s five members.

“There are not enough members of this court willing to decide the constitutional issue at this time,” Chief Justice Gerald VandeWalle wrote. “We therefore do not address the constitutional issue, and we decline to enjoin the secretary of state from placing the referendum measure on the June 2012 primary election ballot.”

Native American Students Given English Proficiency Tests in Washington State

Adrea Korthase

Transcript and audio from KUOW News here. According to the material, the Washington Indian Civil Rights Commission is looking into the practice.

 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 2nd Judicial Symposium

Matthew Campbell

Save the Date is here: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 2nd Judicial Symposium

Materials in North Dakota State Board of Higher Ed v. Jaeger

Kate Fort

Documents only available through HTM links, not as PDFs.
3:00pm Thursday, March 15, 2012
20120112 North Dakota State Board
of Higher Education, Petitioner
v.
Al Jaeger, Secretary of State,
in his official capacity,
Fighting Sioux Ballot Measures
aka Committee For Understanding
and Respect, Respondents
and
North Dakota Legislative Assembly Intervenor

Nature of Action: Writ of Prohibition (Civil)
Counsel:
Petitioner: Douglas Alan Bahr , Att. General Office
Respondent: Reed Alan Soderstrom
Intervenor: Patrick W. Durick
Respondent: Sarah Andrews Herman , Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen.
Respondent: Matthew Allen Kipp , Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen.
Intervenor: Zachary Evan Pelham
Respondent: Stephen John Behm
Issues: Respondent’s Statement of the Issues:
Fighting Sioux Ballet Measurers Issues:
1. Whether Article I, 3, regarding the free exercise and enjoyment of religion precludes the State Board of Higher Education (“SBHE”) to obtain a Writ of Injunction without joinder of the N.D. Sioux Tribes.
2. Whether the 1969 sacred Sioux ceremony giving the Fighting Sioux name to the University of North Dakota constitutes a religious function preventing civil interference.
3. Because the Secretary of State has not certified the Referral Petitions nor has there been an actual vote, whether the matter is ripe for Appellate Review.
4. Whether the actions by the majority of the State Legislature along with the State Board of Higher Education can be separated because the two entities acted in concert to promulgate SB 2370.
5. If SBHE and legislative actions can be separated so that constitutional authority can be chosen and decided by this Court, then the issue is whether or not retaining or retiring the Fighting Sioux name is an act to “organize or reorganize” under Article VIII, 6(6)(b) subject to statutory and constitutional limitations.
6. Because of the SBHE’s failure to assert any constitutional rights following the enactment of N.D.C.C. 15-10-46 and the subsequent repeal of said statute pursuant to SB2370, whether the matter has now vested to the power reserved to the people pursuant to Article III, 1 to approve or reject legislative acts for which the SBHE was directly and influentially involved.
Briefs: