Read the story here.
Tribal Leaders Meet with Governor Rick Snyder
Read the story here.
Michigan Indian
MLive on the Bay Mills Vanderbilt Casino Case & Proposed Lansing Casino
Here.
An excerpt:
Bay Mills has a reservation located on tribal land in the Upper Peninsula’s Chippewa County on the eastern end of Lake Superior.
In 2010, the tribe used earnings from a land settlement trust to purchase 40 acres of land in Vanderbilt, a tiny town just north of Gaylord that’s located more than 100 miles south of the tribe’s main reservation.
The Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act says that land acquired with funds from a land trust “shall be held as Indian lands are held.” So Bay Mills used that language as legal authority to open a small casino in November 2010 in Vanderbilt. Continue reading
Michigan Public Radio Environment Report on LRB’s Role in Preserving the Pine Marten
Here (with photos).
Nearly a hundred years ago a small animal that most people have never heard of was wiped out of the northern forest. In the mid-1980’s, wildlife biologists reintroduced the pine marten in two locations in the Lower Peninsula. They thought the population would take off and spread but it hasn’t. And now researchers are trying to find out why.
The pine marten is the smallest predator in the northern forest. It’s a member of the weasel family… related to otters and ferrets. It weighs roughly two to two-and-a half pounds, has big furry ears, a pointed nose, a bright orange patch on its chest and a bit of a temper.
“I don’t know how big of an animal they would take on but they do have a reputation for being quite fierce.”
Jill Witt is a wildlife biologist with the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians. She has a marten caught in a wire cage tucked next to a fallen log, half buried in twigs and leaf litter.
More than 80 years ago, martens lived in big pine trees before logging, wildfire and trapping wiped them out.
“And I think marten really is a good example of a species that can do well if the forest is allowed to recover and return to and continue on towards a more mature, possible even old growth state.”
NNN on Potawatomi Trail of Death Workshop at 2012 Potawatomi Gathering
Here.
Fletcher on IPR re: Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community Decision
Here.
Does Michigan v. Bay Mills Create a Circuit Split with Mescalero v. New Mexico over Whether IGRA Waives Tribal Immunity?
Well, maybe, but it probably doesn’t matter because of State of Michigan’s amended complaint below.
Yesterday the Sixth Circuit held the Indian tribal immunity survives the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for cases in which a non-federal party with standing sues the tribe for alleged violations of the Act. The court criticized the Tenth Circuit’s holding Mescalero Apache Tribe v. New Mexico (PDF) that IGRA does waive tribal immunity:
Mescalero offers virtually no analysis in support of its contrary reading of § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii)—a point which the State, to its credit, concedes here; and to the extent the opinion does offer any analysis, it mistakenly cites waiver cases rather than abrogation ones. We agree with the Eleventh Circuit, therefore, that Mescalero’s reasoning is “muddled” rather than persuasive.
The CA6 cited the CA11, also critical of the Tenth Circuit’s holding. In Florida v. Seminole Tribe (PDF), the court also criticized the Mescalero holding:
As an initial matter, we find that Mescalero provides no support for the State’s argument. The Mescalero panel, in discussing section 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii), claimed that a majority of courts agree that “IGRA [abrogated] tribal sovereign immunity in the narrow category of cases where compliance with IGRA’s provisions is at issue and where only declaratory or injunctive relief is sought.” 131 F.3d at 1385. In actuality, however, the cases that the panel cited in support of its claim addressed an entirely different matter, to wit: whether a tribe voluntarily waives its own sovereign immunity by engaging in gaming under IGRA. See infra part II.A.2 (discussing tribal waiver of immunity). In light of this absence of supporting authority, we find the Mescalero panel’s claim difficult to credit.
So one circuit has held that IGRA waives tribal immunity, and two circuits expressly disagree with the first circuit. Circuit split, right? Get ready for Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community in the Supreme Court?
Well, probably not. If the Tenth Circuit’s decision is so patently wrong (and mind you, it didn’t have the benefit of any other cases upon which to rely), it probably doesn’t matter. If confronted with the same question again, one could predict the Tenth Circuit going the other way. This is why the Supreme Court doesn’t take questions of first impression very often. They like to let things percolate in the lower courts. Whether IGRA waives tribal immunity is still percolating. The Tenth Circuit is looking like an obvious outlier decision that won’t be repeated. I’d guess, if anyone made the effort, that a Supreme Court cert petition would be denied.
Summer 2012 Mich. State Bar Indian Law Section Newsletter
Here.
The TOC:
Letter from the Chair……………….1
A Year of Strategic Planning…….3
Amicus Briefs: In re Morris and In re Gordon…………………….4
Amicus Brief: In re Micheau……..6
Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act Introduced in Senate……………………………………6
American Indian Law on the Michigan State Bar Exam………..9
Annual Business Meeting and Program…………………………………9
Case Updates……………………….10
The Section Website: http://www.michbar.org/amerindian/ .14
Proposed Amendments to the Bylaws of the American Indian Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan…………………………..15
IPR on Vanderbilt Casino Ruling
Here.
An excerpt:
A written statement from Bay Mills Chair Kurt Perron says the tribe ultimately plans legal victory, and to move forward with its “planned developments.” The tribe did not immediate elaborate on the statement’s meaning.
If Bay Mills is ultimately victorious, the tribe would likely be allowed to build casinos anywhere it wants, without state approval, as long as it buys the land with a specific pool of funds.
“Probably the biggest implication (of today’s ruling) in the long run is just to highlight exactly how difficult it is to shut down a casino opened by an Indian tribe under these circumstances,” says Matthew Fletcher, of MSU’s Indigenous Law Center.
The Vanderbilt Casino is widely regarded as a test site for its Upper Peninsula owner. The tribe has expressed interest in building in Port Huron, and perhaps elsewhere.
It’s not clear what implications this case might have for another Upper Peninsula tribe’s plans to build a casino in downtown Lansing.
Sixth Circuit Vacates Injunction against Bay Mills’ Vanderbilt Casino
Here is today’s opinion (PDF).
Here are the briefs:
BMIC Opening Brief in CA6 Appeal
State of Michigan Appellee Brief
BMIC Motion to Strike Appellee Briefs
Lower court materials here.
Here is the casino:
Guess they can take this sign down now:
Fletcher on “Tribal Membership and Indian Nationhood”
I just posted a short paper prepared for an American Indian Law Review symposium on Indians and identity. The paper, “Tribal Membership and Indian Nationhood,” is a sort of sequel to my NYT’s piece on the Cherokee Freedmen (link to that whole debate is here).
Here is the abstract of the new paper:
American Indian tribes are in a crisis of identity. No one can rationally devise a boundary line between who is an American Indian and who is not. Despite this, each federally recognized tribe has devised a legal standard to apply in deciding who is a member and who is not. Even with some ambiguity and much litigation, these are relatively bright lines. Some Indians are eligible for membership, and others are not eligible. In some rare circumstances, some non-Indians are eligible and become members. However, these bright line rules are crude instruments for determining identity, and often generate outcomes that conflict with legitimate Indian identity.
This paper is about Indian tribes and Indian nations. For purposes of this discussion, there is a difference between the two. I hope to discuss how Indian tribes, shackled to some extent by these intractable questions, can develop into Indian nations. I believe there is room in the American constitutional structure for Indian nations.
I will define what I mean by Indian nationhood. I draw from pre-contact and early post-contact Anishinaabe history to reinvigorate what nationhood meant traditionally. I argue that nations must allow nonmembers some form of political power, though I leave specific details to others. I conclude by arguing that Indian nationhood, in the long-run, is a laudable and perhaps even mandatory goal for modern tribal communities’ survival.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.