Alia Hoss on Tribal Health Sovereignty

Aila Hoss has posted “Securing Tribal Consultation to Support Tribal Health Sovereignty,” forthcoming in the Northeastern University Law Review, on SSRN.

Professor Hoss

Here is the abstract:

Effective intergovernmental coordination is essential to promoting health and safety. Yet, the current political climate has seen discord between Tribes, states, and the federal government on issues ranging from public health to environmental protection, among countless others. The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified this discord. Many states have challenged Tribal authority to access data, implement quarantine and isolation measures, and establish checkpoints and mask mandates. The federal government has delayed access to COVID-19 data, established burdensome and inconsistent policies for the use of federal response funds, and failed to meet its obligations to provide health care in many American Indian and Alaska Native communities.

As sovereign nations, Tribes have authority and responsibility over their land and people. Modern relationships between Tribes, states, and the federal government are based on the colonization and genocide, legalized by the United States under federal Indian law. Federal Indian law both recognizes Tribal sovereignty but also carves out instances in which a Tribe’s criminal or civil jurisdiction can be infringed. It has allowed federal agencies, Congress, and federal courts to exercise overwhelming authority to determine the scope of Tribal and Indigenous rights. And yet, Native representation in these same branches have been abysmal.

One method for ensuring Tribal and Native perspectives in these decision-making processes has been through Tribal consultation. Consultation is a formal, government-to-government process that requires governments to consult with Tribes before taking actions that would impact them.

Tribal consultation is essential for effective Indian health policy. This article argues for a more robust mechanism for Tribal consultation for health policy issues. Section I briefly describes Tribal governments and their relationship to the federal government. Section II summarizes existing requirements for Tribal consultation under federal and state law. Section III describes the limitations of existing Tribal consultation practices. Finally, section IV describes the impact of inadequate consultation on American Indian and Alaska Native health and offers recommendations for a Tribal consultation framework that fully supports American Indian and Alaska Native health.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Beccera

Here:

San Carlos Apache Opening Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

US Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Certifies Interlocutory Appeal to Address “Law of the Place” Question under Federal Tort Claims Act Claim Brought at Acoma

Here are the materials so far in Ray v. United States (D.N.M.):

1 Complaint

35 Ray Motion for Summary J

37 Response

40 DCT Order

54 DCT Order re Certification of Appeal

Federal Court Dismisses Some Claims in Flandreau Santee Sioux Contract Support Costs Case against Indian Health Service

Here are the materials so far in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. United States (D.S.D.):

1 Complaint

16 US Motion to Dismiss

24 Response

28 Reply

36 DCT Order

Navajo Nation Prevails over Interior on Interpretation of Administrative Procedure in ISDEAA Negotiations

Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

1-1 FY2020 AFA

12 Navajo MSJ

13-1 Federal Cross Motion

15 Navajo Reply

17 Federal Reply

19 DCt Order

Materials in Chickasaw Nation Dispute with CVS

Here is the complaint in Chickasaw Nation v. Caremark CVS (E.D. Okla.):

2 Complaint

Most of the other pleadings are sealed.

Here are the materials in Caremark LLC v. Chickasaw Nation (D. Ariz.):

1 Petition to Compel Arbitration

13 Motion to Compel Arbitration

20 Response

26 Reply

28 DCt Order

And here are the briefs so far in Caremark LLC v. Chickasaw Nation (9th Cir.):

Opening Brief

Eighth Circuit Affirms Federal Duty to Provide “competent physician-led healthcare” to Rosebud Sioux Tribe Members

Here is the opinion in Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. United States.

Briefs:

US Opening Brief

Tribe Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

D.C. Circuit Reverses Indirect Costs Judgment that Favored Cook Inlet Tribal Council

Here are the materials in Cook Inlet Tribal Council v. Dotomain:

D.C. Circuit opinion

Federal Brief

Tribe Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Reluctantly Rejects FTCA Claim against IHS Doctor

Here is the opinion in Sisto v. United States.

Briefs:

Federal Court Dismisses N. Arapaho Claims for Contract Support Costs for Programs Funded by Third-Party Revenue

Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Cochrane (D. Wyo.):

1 Complaint

19 Motion to Dismiss

20 Response

25 Reply

26 DCT Order

This case is a few weeks old, and an appeal has been filed to the Tenth Circuit.