UMich NALSA to Host Panel on Sacred Justice feat. Mike Petoskey, Tim Connors, Margaret Connors, and Fletcher
Michigan Indian
Sad News — KBIC Judge Bill Jondreau Walks On
GTB Citizen and Journalist to Discuss Michigan Indian Boarding Schools at Ann Arbor District Library on April 24
Here.
Fletcher on Tribal Customary Law and an Indigenous Canon of Construction
Check out “The Three Lives of Mamengwaa: Toward an Indigenous Canon of Construction” on SSRN.
Abstract:
This paper will survey the history of tribal courts, which allows for an explanation for the reasons behind the relatively minimal impact tribal courts have had on Indian country governance, drawing on the work of Rob Porter. The paper will then turn to the monumental changes in tribal judiciaries and in tribal legal practice of the last few decades, which in turn allows for a discussion about several recent tribal court decisions that could signal a future where tribal courts play a far greater role in regulating Indian country governance through the application of customary law, drawing on the work of Wenona Singel. Finally, the paper offers preliminary thoughts on whether adding robust tribal judicial regulation to an already crowded field of Indian country governance is normatively beneficial. Short answer? Yes. Many of the intractable political disputes that plague tribal governance can be traced to the reliance by tribal governments on state and federal legal principles that are deeply flawed and have limited value in Indigenous contexts. I suggest the acknowledgment of an Indigenous Canon of Construction of tribal laws by tribal judiciaries that limit the impact of colonization on tribal nations.
Sparty Representing at PLSI Pre-Law Advisors Training Conference
D.C. Federal Court Rejects Sault Tribe’s Third Effort to Force Interior to Acquire Land for Off-Rez Gaming
Here is the order in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
Briefs here.
Idaho Indian Law Conference February 17, 2023
Tribe and State Offer Additional Evidence in Line 5 Matter before Michigan Public Service Commission
Materials re: Opposition to Proposed U.S. v. Michigan Consent Decree [updated]
Lots of lawyers making money on what appears to be utterly farcical litigation.
Here are the updated materials in United States v. Michigan (W.D. Mich.):
2074 State Opposition to Motion to Reconsider
2075 GTB Response to Motion to Reconsider
2076 Federal and Tribal Opposition to Sault Motion to Reconsider Stay Order
2077 Sault Tribe Objections to Proposed Consent Decree
Prior post with the details of the consent decree here.
Here are materials in an interlocutory (?) appeal on whether the amici can formally intervene in the case (there is a federal brief, joined by the four tribes who signed onto the consent decree, that is sealed):
Burt Lake Band Attempting to Re-open Federal Recognition Suit
Here are the new materials in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
Docket No. 64: MINUTE ORDER. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that “a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“As a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction.”). Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and “courts may raise the issue sua sponte.” NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 120 (D.C. Cir. 2008), quoting Athens Cmty. Hosp., Inc. v. Schweiker, 686 F.2d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Indeed, a federal court must raise the issue because it is “forbidden… from acting beyond [its] authority, and ‘no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.'” Id., quoting Akinseye v. Dist. of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In connection with the 63 Motion to Rule Upon Constitutional Claims and For Permanent Injunction, then, plaintiff must show cause by January 6, 2023 why the question of the validity of the proposed rule would be ripe at this time, and why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider the constitutional issues when there is no live controversy before it. The 2015 rule has been vacated but its replacement has not yet been promulgated, so plaintiff must explain why it is not simply seeking an advisory opinion. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/23/2022. (lcabj2) (Entered: 12/23/2022)
Prior post here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.