Michigan Indian

Given the multiple references in the record to possible Cherokee heritage, the DHHS had adequate information to make an “initial determination” that C.J. “may be a member” of the Cherokee tribe, implicating a duty to “exercise due diligence to contact” the Cherokee tribe “in writing so that the tribe may verify membership or eligibility for membership.” MCL 712B.9(3) (emphasis added). This was not done. Furthermore, assuming that the DHHS was “unable to make [such] an initial determination” relative to the Cherokee tribe, there is no indication in the record, nor does the DHHS argue on appeal, that the tribe or tribes located in Kalamazoo County were given written notification, which is a minimal requirement under the final sentence in MCL 712B.9(3).FN9 Indeed, the DHHS does not even present an appellant argument under MCL 712B.9(3), despite respondent’s partial reliance on the provision. Accordingly, MCL 712B.9(3), along with 25 USC 1912(a) and MCL 712B.9(1), serves as a basis to order conditional reversal in regard to C.J. On remand, notice must be sent to the Cherokee tribe and, if one exists, to any tribe or tribes in Kalamazoo County.

As for FN9, where the Michigan Court of Appeals admits it does not know if there is a tribe in Kalamazoo County–if only there was a way to find out that information.

Thanks to everyone who sent this one in.

Court Clerk Vacancy with Grand Traverse Band

June 16, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Link to job announcement (PDF) here.

Closing date is Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Please submit complete application to one of the following:

Address:
GTB Human Resources Department
2605 N West Bay Shore Drive
Peshawbestown, MI 49682

Email:
krystina.alveshire@gtbindians.com

Fax:
(231) 534-7904

Cert Stage Briefs Complete in LRB & Soaring Eagle v. NLRB Petitions

June 7, 2016June 7, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here they are for the LRB v. NLRB petition:

Little River Petition and Appendix COMBINED

US Cert Opposition

Little River Reply

Here they are for Soaring Eagle v. NLRB:

Saginaw Cert Petition and Appendix- Filed

US Cert Opposition

Saginaw Cert Reply FINAL

All the briefs are available here at the background materials page for these two cases.

These materials have been submitted for the June 23 Conference at the Supreme Court (docket page here and here).

United States Opposes Cert in NLRB Cases

May 26, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are those briefs:

15-1024 Little River Band

15-1034 Soaring Eagle

Cert petitions are here and here.

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Sues over Michigan Sales & Use and Tobacco Taxes

May 23, 2016May 23, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Khouri (W.D. Mich.):

Complaint

MILS Looking for Staff Attorney for Upper Peninsula

May 11, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Download job announcement here.

Michigan Indian Legal Services (MILS) has an opening for a staff attorney to work out of tribal offices in the Upper Peninsula. The attorney will primarily be providing criminal defense and parent representation in child welfare matters in the Sault Ste. Marie, the Bay Mills Indian Community, and the Lac Vieux Desert Tribal Courts.

Fletcher & Singel on the Historical Basis for the Trust Relationship between the US and Indian Children

April 28, 2016April 28, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Fletcher & Singel have posted “Indian Children and the Federal Tribal Trust Relationship” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

This article develops the history of the role of Indian children in the formation of the federal-tribal trust relationship and comes as constitutional challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) are now pending. We conclude the historical record demonstrates the core of the federal-tribal trust relationship is the welfare of Indian children and their relationship to Indian nations. The challenges to ICWA are based on legally and historically false assumptions about federal and state powers in relation to Indian children and the federal government’s trust relationship with Indian children.

Indian children have been a focus of federal Indian affairs at least since the Framing of the Constitution. The Founding Generation initially used Indian children as military and diplomatic pawns, and later undertook a duty of protection to Indian nations and, especially, Indian children. Dozens of Indian treaties memorialize and implement the federal government’s duty to Indian children. Sadly, the United States then catastrophically distorted that duty of protection by deviating from its constitution-based obligations well into the 20th century. It was during this Coercive Period that federal Indian law and policy largely became unmoored from the constitution.

The modern duty of protection, now characterized as a federal general trust relationship, is manifested in federal statutes such as ICWA and various self-determination acts that return self-governance to tribes and acknowledge the United States’ duty of protection to Indian children. The federal duty of protection of internal tribal sovereignty, which has been strongly linked to the welfare of Indian children since the Founding, is now as closely realized as it ever has been throughout American history. In the Self-Determination Era, modern federal laws, including ICWA, constitute a return of federal Indian law and policy to constitutional fidelity.