Here:
Mr. Geoffrey Blackwell
Chief
Office of Native Affairs and Policy, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
Dr. Howard Hays M.D., M.S.P.H.
Acting Chief Information Officer
Indian Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC
CTV recently released (October 4) a tiny story on what could be a monolithic advancement for the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia, and in turn for aboriginals throughout Canada. Here’s the story. However, be forewarned, this small piece, not even 200 words, barely offers any substance and reads more like an Onion article (“[O]ne of the most pressing details to work out for the Mi’kmaq is to find a place to put a House of Assembly”). And perhaps tellingly, Federal Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Minister John Duncan would not offer comment on it. Curioser and curioser. Stay tuned…
From the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:
The President signed the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act on Friday with authorizes Court Improvement Program (CIP) funding and includes Tribal Court Improvement funding! The Court Improvement funding is to support states and tribes in actions to:
“increase and improve engagement of the entire family in court processes relating to child welfare, family preservation, family reunification, and adoption.”.
Here’s the portion specifically related to tribes. (See pages 7-8 of the Act here)
”(3) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.- ”(A) MANDATORY FUNDS.-Of the amounts reserved
under section 436(b)(2) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate-
”(iv) $1,000,000 for grants to be awarded on a
competitive basis among the highest courts of Indian tribes or tribal consortia that-H. R. 2883-8
”(I) are operating a program under part E, in accordance with section 479B;
”(II) are seeking to operate a program under part E and have received an implementation grant under section 476; or
”(III) has a court responsible for proceedings related to foster care or adoption.
We will send any updates as we hear further information about this exciting opportunity for tribal courts!
Shane Day and Sarabeth Anderson have posted their working paper, “Determinants of Successful American Indian Resistance to the Establishment of State Government Jurisdiction Under Public Law 280: A Comparative Case Study of the Processes of Exemption and Retrocession” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Public Law 280 is a federal law passed in 1953 that grants state governments criminal and some civil jurisdiction over American Indian reservations. In doing so, PL 280 violated the nation-to-nation relationship between Indian tribes and the Federal government and opened the door to greater state interventionism on tribal lands. However, implementation of the law has been quite uneven, resulting in a complex matrix of inter-jurisdictional relationships and conflict. For instance, six states were initially granted “mandatory” PL 280 authority over tribes, with additional states able to apply for jurisdiction under PL 280 through an appeal to Congress. However, in both “mandatory” and “optional” states, certain tribes have been exempted from state jurisdiction. Certain tribal authorities, such as the Red Lake and Warm Springs Reservations, were granted initial exemptions during the initial implementation of the law. Amendments to PL 280 in 1968 also opened up an avenue for tribes to apply for a repeal of state authority, a process known as retrocession. While there is an ample amount of published scholarship examining the history and effects of PL 280, very little work has been conducted in examining cases in which state jurisdiction under PL 280 was initially denied to the states nor cases in which it was subsequently retroceded. This paper presents a typology of state-tribal relationships under PL 280, and seeks to answer the questions of why certain tribes were successful in receiving initial exemptions under PL 280, and why certain tribes, but not others, have been successful in attaining subsequent retrocessions. The paper also outlines a proposed case-based research design and process tracing methodology designed to delve deeper into the various processes and situations identified in our typology.
Enough acronyms?
Here is the link to the witness list, and the list is reproduced here:
Mr. Tom Perrelli
Associate Attorney General
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Mr. Larry Echo Hawk
Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs
United State s Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
Mr. Brendan Johnson
U.S. Attorney
District of South Dakota, United State s Department of Justice, Sioux Falls , SD
Ms. Pamela S. Hyde
Administrator
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC
Dr. Rose Weahkee
Director
Division of Behavioral Health (DBH) in the Office of Clinical and Preventive Services, Indian Health Service. Rockville, MD
Mr. Troy A. Eid
Chair
Indian Law and Order Commission, Denver, CO
The court didn’t agree with the Greater Vancouver Regional District’s argument that the recent Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act was ultra vires the province’s power because “it is, in pith and substance, a law in relation to ‘Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians.'” The decision is here.
Earlier this month the DOI and DOJ released the Long Term Plan to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems. An excerpt:
Central Themes of the Tribal Justice Plan
The following major themes emerged from consultation and public comment:
- Establishing alternatives to incarceration should be the major focus.
- The Tribal Justice Plan should be implemented in consultation and collaboration with Tribal Leaders and should be flexible enough to allow tribes to develop strategies tailored to their specific public safety needs and tribal history and culture.
- The Tribal Justice Plan should coordinate federal, tribal, state and local government resources to support operations, programming in tribal justice systems, and critical infrastructure issues with tribal correctional facilities, fully mindful of the sovereign status of tribes in these coordination efforts.
- There should be greater coordination between DOJ and DOI with respect to awards for grants that may be used to construct tribal correctional facilities and multi-purpose justice centers (which may be provided by DOJ) and P.L. 93-638 contracts and self-governance compacts for funding operations (provided only by DOI). The Departments are committed to addressing the issue of coordination to address this and other issues related to detention in Indian country.
Additional links can be found at NCAI.
Earlier this week the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs released this draft bill for comment.
Here are more details from NCAI:
This draft bill recognizes and strengthens concurrent tribal criminal jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence both Indians and non-Indians who assault Indian spouses, intimate partners, or dating partners, or who violate protection orders, in Indian country. The bill improves the ability of tribes to respond to sex trafficking and strengthens accountability, coordination and consultation with federal agencies.
The Committee is asking tribal leaders, advocates, and representatives to submit any comments or suggestions on the draft in writing by September 6, 2011, via email to comments@indian.senate.gov. Please contact Erik Stegman or Wendy Helgemo at 202-224-2251 with any questions.
Here is the witness list, with links to the written testimony:
The Honorable Tracie Stevens
Chairwoman
National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, DC
Mr. Ernest L. Stevens
Chairman
National Indian Gaming Association, Washington, DC
Mr. Jamie Hummingbird
Chairperson
National Tribal Gaming, Commissioners/Regulators, Tahlequah, OK
Mr. J. Kurt Luger
Executive Director
Great Plains Indian Gaming Association, Bismarck, ND
Written Testimony
Mr. Sheila Morago
Executive Director
Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association, Oklahoma City, OK
Mr. John Meskill
Executive Director
Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission, the Mohegan Tribe, Uncasville, CT
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.