Here is the opinion in Ito v. Copper River Native Association:

Here.
We invite you to join Indian Country ECHO for a Grand Rounds focused on gender-affirming care and legislation in Indigenous communities. In this series of presentations we will describe access to gender-affirming care in Indian Health Service and Tribal facilities in the context of current federal, state, and tribal laws and policies. We will explain tribal sovereignty as it relates to gender-affirming care and share clinical and legal resources for healthcare professionals serving Two-Spirit, Indigiqueer, transgender, and gender-expansive peoples. The one-hour Grand Rounds session includes an opportunity to engage in a didactic presentation, gain insight on how Indian Health Service and Tribal (I/T) facilities may effectively integrate gender-affirming care among legislative bans, become part of a learning community, join a Gender Affirming Care ECHO Program, and ask questions about navigating gender-affirming care in Indigenous healthcare systems. Clinical, public health, and legal experts will be present. CE will be available. At the end of this session, attendees will:
To join, simply register for the 12pm PT April 23rd Grand Rounds event at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GrandRoundsECHO_Registration
Speaker(s): Available to Registered Participants
Highly recommended!
Vanessa Racehorse has posted “Tribal Health Self-Determination: The Role of Tribal Health Systems in Actualizing the Highest Attainable Standard of Health for American Indians and Alaska Natives,” forthcoming in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
In this article, I explore the concept of Tribal self-determination in the context of healthcare systems that serve American Indian and Alaska Native communities. I investigate the vast health disparities that exist in Tribal communities, as well as the history and current legal framework for the provision of health care in Indian Country. Part of this discussion also provides information on the federal laws and policies that have fractured the traditional lifeways of Native communities and contributed to the disparate health outcomes that now exist. I also provide background on the fundamental federal laws and policies, particularly the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, that have facilitated greater Tribal control over programs and services for Tribal communities, including health systems. Tribally-managed health systems can, and are, playing a crucial role in closing this health gap.
This article also positions the status of Native communities in the United States within the global dialogue of the rights of indigenous peoples and the right to health, as indigenous communities subjected to settler-colonial states are demonstrably experiencing similar disparate outcomes. This discussion includes background on the international legal framework for the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the rights of indigenous peoples, and the social determinants of health, some of which are arguably unique to indigenous communities. The article explores these concepts for the lessons that may be garnered for the benefit of Tribal health systems. However, the article also argues that Tribes that are successfully operating healthcare systems have their own lessons to offer the global community regarding providing quality care and bringing American Indian and Alaska Native communities closer to actualizing the highest attainable standard of health.

Here are the materials in Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Dept. of Health and Human Services (D.D.C.):
13-1 federal Motion to Dismiss
14-1 Red Lake Motion for Summary J

Here are the materials in Santee Sioux Nation v. Tso (D. Neb.):
3 Brief ISO Motion for Preiminary Injunction

Here are the materials in Dedicato Treatment Center Inc. v. Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community (C.D. Cal.):

Here is the petition in Beccera v. Northern Arapaho Tribe:
Question presented:
Whether IHS must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition in Beccera v. San Carlos Apache Tribe:
The question presented is the same in both cases.
Lower court materials here.

Here are the materials in Skull Valley Health Care LLC v. NorStar Consultants (D. Utah):
You must be logged in to post a comment.