Onondaga Nation v. New York Petition for Cert

Here:

Onondaga Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

Question Presented: Whether the court of appeals’ ruling that equitable considerations bar the Onondaga Nation’s claim for a declaratory judgment for violations of the Trade and Intercourse Act, three federal treaties, and the United States Constitution contravenes the fundamental right to a remedy, international legal norms, principles of federal equity and this Court’s decisions in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 266 (1985) and City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005).

 

Huy Letter to UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya re: Indian Prisoner Religious Freedom

Here:

UNSR Letter of Allegation Indigenous Prisoners Religious Freedom

Excerpt:

A pattern of restricting American indigenous prisoners’ religious freedoms is currently occurring throughout the United States. In recent years, states have issued new regulations curtailing the ability of American indigenous prisoners to possess religious items, participate in religious ceremonies, and otherwise engage in traditional practices. Further, changes in regulations continue to move forward absent meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples.

  • California: On February 21, 2013, the Department of Corrections issued an “emergency” regulation significantly limiting prisoners’ religious property.[i]  Effective immediately, prisoners no longer have access to sacred medicines like kinninnick, copal, and osha root, cloth for prayer ties, beads, pipes and pipe bags, and numerous other traditional items. The process for getting religious items approved was also made significantly more burdensome. Because the regulations constituted an emergency regulatory action, they went into effect immediately, without any consultation whatsoever with American indigenous peoples or opportunity for public comment.
  • Texas: Prison authorities recently changed regulations for an American indigenous prisoners’ unit, significantly restricting ceremonial participation. American indigenous prisoners are no longer allowed to participate directly in pipe ceremonies, smudge indoors, keep locks of hair from deceased relatives, or perform important ceremonies such as the Wiping Away the Tears ceremony.[ii]  Texas prison guards are also known to engage in overt racism toward indigenous prisoners. The media reports that on January 27, 2013, prison guards searched an indigenous prisoner’s cell, handling his medicine bag. When the prisoner stated that the guards were not supposed to touch his sacred items, a guard said “I don’t give a shit,” and that “being an Indian didn’t make him special.”[iii]
  • Montana: American indigenous prisoners in Montana are currently challenging en masse strip searches conducted prior to sweat lodge ceremonies as well as the confiscation or prohibition of smudge tobacco, antlers, herbs, and other sacred materials.[iv] The state of Montana issued an investigatory report in 2009 confirming almost all of the allegations as well as describing the derogatory treatment of indigenous prisoners by guards.[v]
  • South Dakota: American indigenous peoples comprise 27 percent of the South Dakota prison population, the highest proportion of any state in the country.[vi] On October 19, 2009, the Department of Corrections extended a ban on tobacco to indigenous religious uses. Indigenous prisoners were no longer allowed to use tobacco in sweat lodge ceremonies, pipe ceremonies, or for prayer ties and flags. When a federal district court held the ban violated federal law, prison authorities were still unable to agree with prisoners on an accommodation, forcing the court to issue a remedial order.[vii] South Dakota has appealed the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Washington: In 2010, the Washington Department of Corrections barred almost all American indigenous prisoners’ religious practices, banned tobacco, reclassified sacred medicines such as sage and sweet grass as non-religious, prohibited foods for traditional meals such as frybread and buffalo, disallowed children from attending summer prison pow wows, and altered regulations so that certain religious items could no longer be securely stored.  After ten tribes petitioned the governor, the Department of Corrections reversed course, consulting with tribal leaders about reforms and reaching an accommodation to restore American indigenous prisoners’ religious rights.[viii]  Events in Washington demonstrate both the larger pattern of rising restrictions on indigenous prisoners’ rights as well as the importance of consultation with American indigenous peoples concerning administrative measures that affect them.  That state-tribal consultation and reform effort is what gave rise to Huy.

[i] State of California Office of Administrative Law, Notice of Approval of Emergency Regulatory Action, http://www.oal.ca.gov/res/docs/pdf/emergency_postings/2013-0206-01EON_App.pdf.

[ii] Appellant’s Opening Brief, Chance v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, No. 12-41015 (January 14, 2013), https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/chance-opening-brief-filed.pdf.

[iii] Brian Daffron, “Inmate’s Religious Rights Allegedly Violated Within Texas Prison System,” Indian Country Today (March 8, 2013), http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/03/08/inmates-religious-rights-allegedly-violated-within-texas-prison-system-148058.

[iv] Knows His Gun v. Montana, 866 F.Supp.2d 1235 (D. Mont. 2012), http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/documents/knows_his_gun.html.

[v] Montana Department of Corrections Investigation Team, “Investigation into Complaints from Native American Inmates at the Crossroads Correctional Center, Shelby, Montana,” May 14, 2009, Part 1: http://www.aclumontana.org/images/stories/documents/montanaprisonproject/crossroadsdocinvestigation1.pdf, Part 2: http://www.aclumontana.org/images/stories/documents/montanaprisonproject/crossroadsdocinvestigation2.pdf.

[vi] Native Am. Council of Tribes v. Weber, No. Civ. 09-4182, 2012 WL 4119652 (D.S.D. Sept. 19, 2012), https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/dct-remedial-order.pdf.

[vii] Id.; Remedial Order, Native Am. Council of Tribes v. Weber, Civ. 09-4182-KES (D. S.D. 2013), https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/dct-remedial-order.pdf.

[viii] Gabriel S. Galanda, “Native American Prisoners Obtain Religious Freedom,” King County Bar Association Bar Bulletin (July 2012), https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=07&Year=2012&AID=article1.htm.

NYTs: French Court Allows Sale of Hopi Artifacts

Here.

Prior post here.

NYTs: Hopis Try to Stop Paris Auction of Artifacts

Here.

An excerpt:

The Néret-Minet auction house in Paris says that its sale, on April 12, will be one of the largest auctions of Hopi artifacts ever, and it estimates that it will bring in $1 million. Many of the objects are more than 100 years old and carry estimates of $10,000 to $35,000. The auction house says that among the spirits represented are the Crow Mother, the Little Fire God and the Mud Head Clown.

“Sacred items like this should not have a commercial value,” said Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma, director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office in Kykotsmovi, Ariz. “The bottom line is we believe they were taken illegally.”

Border Wall and Indigenous Peoples

The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), just issued an Early Warning and Urgent Action regarding the discriminatory impact of the construction of the border wall on indigenous peoples leaving in Texas. The petition was prepared by students at the Human Rights Clinic in collaboration with Dr. Margo Tamez (citizen of the Lipan Apache Band of Texas; Faculty of Indigenous Studies at the University of British Columbia Okanagan), in coordination with the Lipan Apache Women Defense, an Indigenous Peoples’ Organization (IPO), and members of the Lipan Apache Band.

 

Here is the letter from the UN CERD to the United States: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/early_warning/USA1March2013.pdf

It is accessible at the bottom of this page, under the United States, 2013 ‘E’. > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/early-warning.htm

New Scholarship on Indigenous Decolonization and United Nations Membership

India Reed Bowers has posted “Indigenous Decolonization and United Nations Membership: Indigenous Peoples and the Fundamental Right to Self-Determination” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This LL.M. thesis provides legal arguments for, amongst other things, the inclusion of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples as Members of the United Nations (equal to States, but not required to form States) through an equality- and dignity-based examination of UN Decolonization, ‘friendly relations’, and self-determination. The arguments contained within also provide an examination of the violations of International Law resulting from, amongst other topics addressed, discrimination committed by the United Nations and States against Indigenous and Tribal Peoples via State-Indigenous governing relationships. Limited access to justice and limited actualized rights in regards to Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination are discussed with reference to Tribal/Indigenous/State shared histories, legal personality, the International Court of Justice and judicial procedure and remedy, State anti-discrimination laws, the UN and its relationship to international trade and business, the codification of international human rights and criminal law, mental health (with special attention to high Indigenous suicide rates in ‘developed’ States, colonialism and discrimination), current UN definitions of ‘aggression’, ‘war’, ‘colonialism’ and ‘conflict’ (with suggestions of definition revisions), State abuse towards Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, segregation and exclusion, and apartheid and cultural genocide as resulting from State-Indigenous inequality as experienced by Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. UN definitions of ‘development’ are challenged and held accountable for cultural discrimination and death. Recommendations with an emphasis on healing include amendment of the UN Charter and suggested General Assembly Resolutions, as well as equal international leadership opportunity for traditional and chosen Indigenous and Tribal legal and governing cultures, subsistence-based lifeways and traditional Indigenous and Tribal healers with a focus on the right to cultural integrity, traditional Indigenous and Tribal lands, including the right to say ‘no’ to non-native land-grabbing, resource exploitation and State abuses. The argument that State territorial integrity includes Indigenous and Tribal traditional lands is also countered. The original version of this LL.M. thesis was submitted to the Master’s of Law program ‘International Law of Human Rights and Criminal Justice’ at Utrecht University, the Netherlands, 22 August 2012. This online version was uploaded 5 March 2013.

Hearings on First Nations Child Welfare

News article here.

OTTAWA – The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal begins hearings into a major case this morning about federal financing for First Nations child welfare.

Read it on Global News: Global News | First Nations child welfare funding in court

ASU Symposium on UN DRIP’s Impact of Federal Indian Policy

Can International Law Support Changes to Federal Indian Policy? Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Conference

April 19, 2013 – 8:30 a.m. – 5:15 p.m.

Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University

Great Hall, Armstrong Hall, 1100 S. McAllister Avenue, Tempe, AZ 85287

Agenda and registration online at: http://conferences.asucollegeoflaw.com/drip/ Register early!

Contact: Darlene Lester / darlene.lester@asu.edu / 480-965-7715

Sponsored by the Indian Legal Program and the Center for Law and Global Affairs at ASU

Keynote Speaker: S. James Anaya, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

MSU International Law Review Symposium on the Arctic

Our own Victoria Sweet — the 2013-14 ILPC Fellow — has organized an amazing legal symposium — “Battle for the North: Is All Quiet on the Arctic Front?” She put together an amazing line-up of international scholars — and the leader of the US Coast Guard will unveil a new strategic approach to the Arctic at the conference.Polar Bear

Here is the symposium website. And here is the description:

This symposium will highlight the current concerns and questions surrounding the Arctic. The event will raise awareness of and encourage discussion about various topics such as: international security concerns; indigenous people in the Arctic region; environmental law; regulation, governance and management of Arctic lands and resources; exploration, exploitation, and transportation of oil, gas, and minerals; and the law of the sea.

Papers will be published in the Michigan State International Law Review.

Agenda:

Thursday, February 21, 2013
5:00 p.m. Check In: Kellogg Hotel & Conference Center, Big Ten C
5:30 p.m. Reception
6:00 p.m. Dinner
7:00 p.m. Opening Remarks
Victoria Sweet, Executive Editor, Michigan State International Law Review

Bruce W. Bean, Professor and Michigan State International Law Review Faculty Advisor, Michigan State University College of Law, International Law Review Faculty Advisor

7:15 p.m. Keynote
Lawson Brigham, “The New Maritime Arctic: Global Connections and Complex Challenges”
7:45 p.m. The Impacts of Climate Change
Moderator: Jennifer Carter-Johnson, Assistant Professor, Michigan State University College of Law
Sumudu Atapattu, “Climate Change, Indigenous Peoples and the Arctic: The Changing Horizon of International Law”
Avi Brisman, “Climate Change and the Future of the Arctic: Cultural and Environmental Considerations”
8:30 p.m. Closing Remarks
Friday, February 22, 2013
8:00 a.m. Breakfast and Registration: MSU College of Law Castle Boardroom
8:45 a.m. Opening Remarks
Dean Joan W. Howarth, Dean, Michigan State University College of Law
9:00 a.m. Keynote
Rear Admiral Frederick J. Kenney Jr., “The U.S. Coast Guard and the Challenge of the Arctic”
9:35 a.m. Arctic Governance
Moderator: Michael Lawrence, Associate Dean, Michigan State University College of Law
Waliul Hasanat, “Reforming the Arctic Council against Increasing Climate Change Challenges in the North”
Tanja Joona, “ILO Convention 69 and the Governance of Indigenous Nordic Lands”
Tony Penikett & Adam Goldenberg, “Devolution & Democracy – Equal Citizenship in Canada’s North”
Danielle Sibener Pensley, “Subsistence as Resistance: Implications of Environmental Ethics for Property Law”
10:45 a.m. Coffee Break
11:05 a.m. Shipping & The Law of the Sea
Moderator: Beverly Moran, Visiting Professor, Michigan State University College of Law, (visiting from Vanderbilt University College of Law)
Erik Franckx, “The Northern Sea Route Shipping Season 2012: A First Assessment”
Donald R. Rothwell, “International Law and Arctic Shipping”
Ingvild Jakobsen, “The Adequacy of the Law of the Sea and International Environmental Law to the Arctic Ocean”
12:05 a.m. Lunch
12:40 p.m. Keynote
Timo Koivurova, “Final Battle over the ‘Final’ Hydrocarbon Province – the Arctic”
1:15 p.m Indigenous Peoples’ Resources and Lands
Moderator: Wenona Singel, Associate Professor, Michigan State University College of Law
Dorothee Cambou, “Control over Resources: A Prerequisite for the Realization of the Arctic Indigenous Right to Self-Determination”
Tim Heleniak, “The Migration of Arctic Populations”
Susann Funderud Skogvang, “Legal Questions Regarding Mineral Exploration and Exploitation in Indigenous Areas: Examples from Sami Areas in Norway”
Rutherford Hubbard, “Risk, Rights and Responsibility: Navigating Corporate Responsibility and Indigenous Rights in Greenlandic Extractive Industry Development”
2:25 p.m. Coffee Break
2:45 p.m. Natural Resources
Moderator: Noga Morag-Levine, Professor, Michigan State University College of Law
Andrew van Wagner, “A Heating Competition for Unclaimed Resources”
Vladimir Gladyshev, “Delimitation Issues: Cutting up the Arctic Pie”
Nikolas Sellheim, “The Neglected Tradition? – The Crafting of the EU Seal Products Ban and Commercial Sealing”
Betsy Baker, “Governance of the Marine Arctic for Resource Development”
3:55 p.m. Coffee Break
4:15 p.m. Arctic Security
Moderator: John Reifenberg, Professor, Michigan State University College of Law
Adele Buckley, “Arctic Nuclear-Weapon-Free Treaty Ratification by Non-Nuclear Weapons States Models Cooperation and Presses Nuclear Weapon States to New Strategy”
Natalia Loukacheva, “Polar Law, Arctic Security and Geo-Political Trends”
Zhixiong Huang, “Governance of the Arctic: The Role of China”
5:15 p.m. Closing Remarks

International Indian Treaty Council Files Action with UN CERD in Conjunction with Chief Theresa Spence and the Mushkegowuk People of Attawapiskat First Nation

Press release here:

Final Press Release IITC Attawapiskat Feb 18 2013