Michigan Indian

Third Fletcher Commentary on ICWA in Cato Unbound

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is “A History Lesson“:

An excerpt:

Reformers are still trying to save Indian children by taking them away from Indian families and tribes. Mr. Sandefur would rather force Indian children into state court systems by undoing ICWA, perhaps because they can be more easily plucked from state systems by the private adoption market. There have even been calls to greatly expand the number of Indian children in foster care. Literally no ethical person seeks to put more children in foster care. Studies show what should be inherently understood—plucking children out of a community they know and putting them in stranger foster care is actively harmful to kids (there’s a reason Casey Family Programs is putting a billion dollars into reducing the number of kids in foster care). Eighty percent of child welfare removals are due to neglect. Our children do deserve better: better services, better wrap around care, a better understanding of the mental health issues and chemical dependency that plagues their parents. They don’t deserve to be taken from everything familiar—their neighborhood, schools, and extended family—because of system failures in our society.

Imagine a child welfare proceeding where the judge meets with the parties for two hours before the hearing to engage in problem solving and to brainstorm creative ideas to best serve the child, followed by a formal hearing that may last two or more hours. Compare that to a state court hearing that lasts mere minutes, and where there are systematic financial pressures for “permanency,” in other words, to place children in foster care, terminate parental rights quickly, and adopt them out. It’s not even a comparison.

Prior entries here and here.

News Profile of LTBB Reservation Litigation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Long lawsuit ahead regarding tribal reservation: Federal judge orders two phases to tribal lawsuit, first phase could go to 2018.”

Court docs here.

Gun Lake Tribe to Release Lake Sturgeon into Kalamazoo River

Sarah M Donnelly

WHO: Gun Lake Tribe of Pottawatomi Indians; Michigan Department of Natural Resources; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Kalamazoo River Chapter of Sturgeon for Tomorrow.

WHAT: Public celebration / release of juvenile sturgeon into the Kalamazoo River.

WHEN: Monday, August 29, 2016 from 6 pm to 8 pm.

WHERE: New Richmond Bridge County Park, 5700 Old Allegan Road, Hamilton, Mich.  Google Maps click here                            

DETAILS: The Gun Lake Tribe has organized an annual release of lake sturgeon into the Kalamazoo River.  Participating parties include the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, and the Kalamazoo River chapter of Sturgeon for Tomorrow.  The 8-inch sturgeon set for release were reared in a streamside hatchery and will be hand-released back into the river.

Sturgeon, or Nmé in Pottawatomi, is culturally important to the Tribe as the fish represents an animal clan in traditional beliefs.  Sturgeon clan people have spiritual knowledge offered as guidance to others and they live to an old age, just like lake sturgeon.  The rehabilitation of lake sturgeon is a reflection of the Tribe’s present-day progression as a community and a tribal government.

A welcome will be provided by Chairperson Leah Sprague-Fodor.  Tribal youth drum group, ThunderBuddies, will perform.  Also taking part in the ceremony are tribal elders John Bush, Punkin and Dave Shananaquet, and Miss Potawatomi Mary Bush.  The event will also include hatchery tours and light dinner for up to 200 people in attendance.  The general public is encouraged to attend this event.

CONTACT: Elizabeth Binoniemi-Smith (269) 397-1780 (office), (616) 885-2155 (on-site)

Gun Lake Tribe and state to split $21.7M in disputed revenue sharing

Teresa Walrod1 Comment

From mLive.com:

The Gun Lake Tribe of Pottawatomi Indians and the state of Michigan have agreed to split $21.7 million as a “partial settlement” of a dispute over the Michigan Lottery’s creation of online ticket sales and lottery terminals in social clubs.

HERE

EPA Assesses Enbridge Energy Millions for Indian Country Spills

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in United States v. Enbridge Energy (W.D. Mich.):

1 Complaint

 

D.C. Circuit Forces Mackinac Tribe to Exhaust Remedies in Its Quest for Federal Recognition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the per curiam opinion in Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell.

Judge Brown filed a concurrence criticizing Interior for its delays.

Briefs here.

Gun Lake Tribe Prevails in Patchak Matter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Patchak v. Jewell. 

Here are the briefs. 

Cert Petition in Kelsey v. Pope

Teresa Walrod2 Comments

Cert Petition regarding the question of the Little River Band’s criminal jurisdiction over off-reservation crimes affecting core tribal government interests.

Questions presented:

1.  Whether Indian tribes can prosecute their members for acts that occur outside the tribe’s territory absent Congressional authorization; and

2. Whether the Band’s retroactive expansion of a narrow and precise jurisdictional statute to encompass an extraterritorial act previously outside its plain terms violates the due process protections of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a), and Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 647 (1964).

No. 16-5120 Kelsey Cert Petition

Prior posts on Kelsey v. Pope, including lower court decisions, are here.

 

Federal Court Issues Order in Little Traverse Reservation Boundaries Case Bifurcating Merits and Remedies Phases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the order in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Snyder (W.D. Mich.):

91. 2016-07-06 Opinion and Order Bifurcating Case and Granting Denying Plf’s MSD

An excerpt:

“‘Only Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries,’ and its intent to do so must be clear.” Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072, 1078–79 (2016) (quoting Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 470 (1984)). Even when a reservation exists and has not been diminished, however, a “long delay in seeking equitable relief . . . [can] evoke the doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, and render inequitable the piecemeal shift in governance [a] suit seeks unilaterally to initiate.” City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 221 (2005); cf. Parker, 136 S. Ct. at 1082 (citing Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 217–221) (“Because petitioners have raised only the single question of diminishment, we express no view about whether equitable considerations of laches and acquiescence may curtail the Tribe’s power to tax the retailers of Pender in light of the Tribe’s century-long absence from the undisputed lands.”).

These two principles frame the dispute this motion presents: May equitable defenses lie in this lawsuit? To best answer this question and organize this case, bifurcation is appropriate. In the first phase, which will address the existence and diminishment of a reservation, equitable defenses cannot lie. If necessary, the Court will revisit the dispute at the second, remedial phase.

Here are the briefs:

Doc. 66 – Tribe’s Memorandum in Support of Combined Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Defenses or Rule 26(b) Motion to Limit Discovery

Doc. 75 – State’s Brief in Opposition to Tribe’s Combined Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Rule 12(F) Motion to Strike Defenses or Rule 26(B) Limit Discovery

Doc. 80 – Tribe’s Combined Reply in Support of Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Alternative Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Defenses and Rule 26(b) Motion to Limit Discovery

State of Michigan Celebrates Reunification Day

Sarah M Donnelly

Link to news coverage here.

The Michigan Supreme Court ceremonially praised the efforts of family court participants, including Tribal leaders, for restoring children to their families on June 24, 2016, in Lansing.  Five judges from Michigan’s Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum were present.  According to the article, more than half of foster care children were returned to their families in 2015.