federal recognition

Kirsten Carlson on Lobbying Congress for Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted “Why Lobby Congress? Constitutive and Instrumental Influences on Indian Groups’ Strategies for Federal Recognition, 1977-2012” on SSRN. This paper is highly recommended.

Here is the abstract:

When and why do marginalized groups chose a particular institutional venue when pursuing their legal claims? This article combines theoretical and methodological insights from sociolegal and interest group studies to investigate why non-federally recognized Indian groups used legislative strategies for federal recognition from 1977 to 2012. It finds Indian groups employed legislative strategies both to increase their chances of success and for constitutive purposes, including educating the public and leveraging institutional tensions. The article’s emphasis on constitutive and instrumental motivations provides a more nuanced approach to understanding marginalized groups’ venue decisions.

Counterclaims against US and Poarch Band Dismissed in Tax Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

This is a continuation of Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Hildreth, recently decided by the Eleventh Circuit.

Here are the materials in Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Moore (S.D. Ala.):

77-magistrate-rr

79-poarch-band-objections

80-dct-order

An excerpt:

After due and proper consideration of all issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated August 10, 2016 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court with the following exceptions. The Court does not adopt the recommendation to deny the Plaintiff’s Motion to strike Defendant Moore’s affirmative defenses numbered 4 and 5, but rather grants the motion to strike defenses 4 and 5 for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 79). The report and recommendation is adopted in all other respects.

Frank’s Landing Class II Gaming Suit Dismissed as to the NIGC; Other Defendants Remain

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Franks Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission (W.D. Wash.):

19 Motion to Dismiss

24 Response

27 Reply

29 DCT Order

D.C. Circuit Forces Mackinac Tribe to Exhaust Remedies in Its Quest for Federal Recognition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the per curiam opinion in Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell.

Judge Brown filed a concurrence criticizing Interior for its delays.

Briefs here.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Injunction Favoring Poarch Band against Escambia County Assessor

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Hildreth.

An excerpt:

The Poarch Band of Creek Indians (“Poarch Band”) sued James Hildreth,
Tax Assessor of Escambia County, Alabama, for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the assessment of property taxes on lands owned by the Poarch Band in Escambia County, Alabama, and held in trust by the United States (“Trust Property”). The Poarch Band maintains the Trust Property is exempt from taxation pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (“IRA”). See 25 U.S.C. § 465.1 The district court granted injunctive relief barring the tax assessment efforts during the pendency of the case, and Hildreth appeals.2 Finding no abuse of discretion and no error of law, we affirm.

Briefs here.

Complaint in Mission Creek Band of Mission of Indians v. Jewell

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, filed in the Central District of California:

Complaint

Interior Publishes 2016 List of Federally Recognized Tribes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

2016 Indian Entities Eligible

D.C. Circuit Oral Argument in Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Briefs here.

Pamunkey Indian Tribe is First Federally Recognized Tribe in Virginia

Sarah M Donnelly

Final Order re Acknowledgment 62ibia122

Download press release here.

On January 28, 2016, the Pamunkey Indian Tribe’s July 2, 2015 Final Determination for Federal Acknowledgment (the “Final Determination”) became effective as a result of a final dismissal of a request for reconsideration entered by the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (the “IBIA”). In re Federal Acknowledgment of the Pamunkey Indian Tribe, 62 IBIA 122 (01/28/2016). The IBIA explained that Stand Up for California! (“Stand Up”), an organization that focuses on gambling issues affecting California, failed to show that it is an “interested party” to the Final Determination within the meaning of the Federal acknowledgment regulations, and therefore the IBIA concluded that Stand Up is not entitled to seek reconsideration of the Final Determination.

2016 Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the notice from the Federal Register:

2016 Federal Register List of Entities Eligible