Frank Ettawageshik, our mentor and former LTBB tribal chair, helped to organize this one: “Who Decides You’re Real? Fixing the Federal Recognition Process.”
Agenda is here.
Frank Ettawageshik, our mentor and former LTBB tribal chair, helped to organize this one: “Who Decides You’re Real? Fixing the Federal Recognition Process.”
Agenda is here.
Lorinda Riley has published “Shifting Foundation: The Problem with Inconsistent Implementation of Federal Recognition Regulations” (PDF) in the NYU Review of Law & Social Change.
Here is the abstract:
The establishment of federal recognition is the cornerstone of federal Indian law. All rights, including criminal jurisdiction, tax status, gaming rights, and hunting and fishing rights, stem from this initial acknowledgment. Yet prior law review articles have focused only on the overarching process of federal recognition without closely examining the actual administrative findings of the Department of the Interior.
This article will provide an in-depth examination of the regulations governing whether an Indian entity is entitled to the benefits of a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Specifically, this article examines the regulatory process for filing a federal recognition petition and critiques four of the criteria that petitioning Indian entities consistently fail to meet. By reviewing Department of the Interior decisions, this article demonstrates the inconsistencies in regulatory interpretations and guidance documents as well as the inherent biases in the current regulatory framework.
Finally, the article discusses potential solutions to these problems and identifies the first step necessary in order to fully understand the depth of this regulatory issue.
Here are the materials in Gardner v. Jewell:
Here are the materials so far in No Casino in Plymouth v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):
35 Ione Band Motion for Intervention
46 DCT Order Granting Intervention
Complaints are here.
Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn announced that the Department is extending the opportunity for public comment on a Preliminary Discussion Draft of potential changes to the Federal Acknowledgment Process by more than 30 days to September 25, 2013. This extended period is in response to written requests as well as requests received at the tribal consultation sessions and public meetings held in July and August.
The discussion draft, initially issued on June 21, 2013, is a preliminary precursor to the rulemaking process and is intended to provide tribes and the public an early opportunity to provide input on potential improvements to the Part 83 process. Once the Department begins the rulemaking process, tribes and the public will have additional opportunities to provide comment. The discussion draft is available for review at http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS- IA/ORM/83revise/index.htm.
Comments on the discussion draft may be submitted by email to consultation@bia.gov (include “1076-AF18” in the message subject line) or by mail to: Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., MS- 4141-MIB, Washington, D.C. 20240 (include “1076-AF18” on the cover of the submission).
Here are the materials in Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley v. Jewell (N.D. Cal.):
Here is the opinion in Mishewal Wappo Tribe v. Salazar.
Excerpt:
The Counties of Napa and Sonoma (“the Counties”) appeal the district court’s revocation of their status as intervening defendants. The Counties also appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the revocation of their status as intervenors.
Briefs:
Here is the opinion:
Here:
Quick Comments:
This revision strikes me as a response in some ways to the Carcieri decision. The first obvious change is that tribal groups need only to prove existence (for lack of a better word so early in the morning) dating back to 1934 instead of 1900. As a result, some of the substantive criteria has been changed due to the date change, and perhaps even liberalized to the benefit of petitioning groups.
Finally, there appears to be some changes allowing for expedited decisions favoring tribes previously recognized in some contexts, perhaps ala Tejon.
You must be logged in to post a comment.