federal recognition – Page 9

Whether the Court of Appeals deviated from this Court’s decision in Carcieri v Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) which held that the Secretary of Interior’s Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP) established in 25 C.F.R. Part 83 is not determinative as to whether Indian Tribe is “recognized” for the purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. § 479)?

Whether the Secretary of Interior can avoid performing her mandatory non-discretionary duty under the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. § 476) to call elections to ratify tribal constitutional documents within a reasonable time by requiring a tribe to exhaust administrative remedies estimated to require 30 years to complete?

Lower court materials here.

Kirsten Carlson on Lobbying Congress for Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes

October 14, 2016Matthew 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

September 13, 2016September 13, 2016Matthew 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.