Here is the opinion: Patchak decision.
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials are here.
Here is the motion in the case captioned County of Charles Mix v. DOI (D. S.D.): Interior Motion to Dismiss Charles Mix County Complaint
And here is the response: Charles Mix County Opposition Brief
Here is the complaint, a challenge to the government’s trust acquisition of land for the Yankton Sioux Tribe on which a travel plaza is located.
Here: Cowlitz ROD
and here.
Also, the Cowlitz Tribe’s initial submission to BIA regarding the Carcieri issue: Cowlitz Carcieri Submission
In the Gila River Indian Community v. United States litigation over proposed gaming lands benefiting the Tohono O’odham Nation, there have been numerous efforts by Arizona state politicians to intervene in the suit. No party seems to want them there, and they don’t seem to be adding a whole lot to the suit in terms of substance, and the court largely had refused to let individual politicians in the case — at first. Here are the first two orders, denying two such requests:
DCT Order Denying Sen Pearce Motion to Intervene
DCT Order Denying Scott Bundgaard Motion to Intervene
On November 19, however, Judge Campbell permitted the intervention of “Legislative Leaders” of the Arizona Legislature. Here is that order: DCT Order Permitting Intervention of Ariz Legislators.
Why?
Here is that order (the Senator is Russell Pearce): DCT Order Denying Sen Pearce Motion to Intervene
Eric Eberhard has generously provided the entire conference transcript and materials packet for the Seattle University Center for Indian Law and Policy conference, “Perspectives on Tribal Land Acquisitions in 2010: A Call to Action.”
These materials easily are the finest set of documents relating to the last 30 years of the law and politics of Interior trust acquisitions.
It’s an 862-page document, about 100 MB, but worth the time to download [if you want the CD, please contact Eric or others in the program]
Sarah Washburn has published Distinguishing Carcieri v. Salazar: Why the Supreme Court Got It Wrong and How Congress and Courts Should Respond to Preserve Tribal and Federal Interests in the IRA’s Trust-Land Provisions in the Washington Law Review.
The abstract:
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and hold land in trust for the purpose of providing land for Indians. In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Carcieri v. Salazar that to qualify for the benefits of Section 5, tribes must show they were under federal jurisdiction at the time the IRA was enacted in 1934. The Carcieri Court then determined that the Narragansett tribe, which obtained federal recognition in 1983 under the 25 C.F.R. Part 83 recognition process, had not proven that it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Carcieri was the first case in which the Court decoupled jurisdiction from recognition for purposes of the IRA. It could be read to suggest that federal recognition on its own is not enough to prove federal jurisdiction for purposes of the IRA and thus threatens the interests of all tribes; especially at risk are tribes that obtained federal recognition after Congress enacted the IRA. Many of those tribes were simply overlooked and excluded from a list of recognized tribes compiled upon enactment of the IRA, and all of them have demonstrable historical relationships with the federal government. While the Carcieri Court limited its holding to the timing question—that the phrase “now under federal jurisdiction” in the IRA means that a tribe must prove federal jurisdiction existed in 1934—it did not consider how tribes might prove such jurisdiction existed. This Comment argues that tribes recognized after the enactment of the IRA, through either traditional recognition processes or the recognition procedures set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 83, were necessarily under federal jurisdiction in 1934 and should therefore qualify under the IRA’s Section 5 trust-land provisions. It argues that Congress should respond to Carcieri with legislation clarifying that all federally recognized tribes were necessarily under federal jurisdiction in 1934. It further argues that until Congress acts, courts should allow tribes recognized after 1934 to prove through additional evidence that such jurisdiction existed.
Alexander Tallchief Skibine has posted “Towards a Trust We Can Trust: Taking the Duty to Transfer Land into Trust for Indian Tribes Seriously” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to explain why the Secretary of the Interior should have a proactive role in placing land into trust status for the benefit of Indian tribes pursuant to the authority given to him by Congress under section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Although the broader question addressed in this paper is the role the Indian trust doctrine should have in guiding all federal agencies when implementing legislation enacted for the benefit of Indians, the paper addresses this issue by focusing on the legitimacy of the regulations adopted by the Department in 1980 and 1995 to implement section five of the IRA. The thesis of this paper is that in the context of section 5 of the IRA, the trust doctrine should guide decisions made by the Secretary of the Interior. To demonstrate this point, after giving a short overview of the history of section five’s implementation, the paper examines the role of the trust doctrine in the implementation of legislation enacted for the benefit of Indians, and concludes by explaining why it should play a crucial role in the Secretary’s implementation of section 5 of the IRA.
Looks like an important, timely paper.
From How Appealing:
“Tribal-rights advocates seek ‘fix’ in Congress”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal today contains an article that begins, “Tribal-rights advocates came in force to Capitol Hill Tuesday to ask Congress to undo last year’s Supreme Court ruling that made it harder for Native Americans to set their own rules for the use of certain lands — including the Rhode Island parcel at issue in the decision.”
More at Indianz.
You must be logged in to post a comment.