Here are the materials in Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Bernhardt:
Lower court materials here.
Update — the case has been removed to federal court, the Northern District of Illinois:
Additional update (3/17/2020):
Here is the complaint in Chicago Transit Authority Retiree Health Care Trust v. Dilworth Paxon LLP (Cook County Circuit Ct.):
Here is the Creek Supreme Court order:
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes’2018 Indian Child Welfare Legal Summit
The Montana Court Improvement Program, in conjuction with CSKT, would like to invite you to this interactive training designed to improve legal knowledge, skills, and practices in relation to Indian Child Welfare.
After opening with a case law update describing recent Montana opinions, federal court litigation, and note-worthy opinions from sister states, this CLE will provide a quick interactive refresher on the basics of tribal jurisdiction in child custody cases and the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
With this foundation in place, participants will explore topics like best practices in child welfare cases, domestic child sex trafficking, tribal code enhancement, and ethics as it relates to Indian child welfare cases. Participants will have the opportunity to break out into small affinity groups to discuss improving systems and practices across the state in order to better serve AI/AN children and families.
This two-day training is designed for tribal attorneys, tribal judges, parents’ attorneys, GALs, adoption attorneys, and state prosecutors. (Although caseworkers, CASAs, and other child welfare practitioners are welcome to join us, the focus of this training is to improve legal knowledge, skills, and practices.) Faculty includes local and national experts, practitioners, and scholars from across the country. An application for CLE credits will be filed.
For agenda, updates and more visit:
Link to article here.
Citation and abstract:
Croman, K. S., & Taylor, J. B. (2016). Why beggar thy Indian neighbor? The case for tribal primacy in taxation in Indian country. Joint Occasional Papers on Native Affairs (JOPNA 2016-1). Tucson, AZ and Cambridge, MA: Native Nations Institute and Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development.
The law governing taxation in Indian country is a mess. The accretion of common law precedents and the general tendency of states to assert primacy over the taxation of non-Indians create absurd outcomes. This article makes the case three ways. The argument based on the law shows that particularized, fact-specific precedents create a thicket of rulings that impede business development. The argument based on facts shows that these impediments to economic development harm not only tribal economies, but state and local economies, too. And the argument based on just claims testifies to the fact that the current arrangement could hardly have emerged from the actions of willing and informed governments operating in good faith. To borrow from Adam Smith, states beggar their Indian neighbors, seeking fiscal gain to the tribes’ detriment and, ultimately, their own. We conclude by recommending actions to bring fairness and certainty to the law governing taxation in Indian country.
Here is the complaint in John et. al. v. Garcia et. al., 16-cv-02368 (N.D. Cali.)
At this time it is unclear who will be defending the federal suit, Boland said. Last week, the Elem Colony Executive Committee’s longtime general counsel, Tony Cohen, publicly stated that he withdrew his representation in a blog post.
He said that in his 35 years practicing Indian law, “I have always worked to improve the lives of tribal members and have never helped tribal governments to be oppressors.”