Here.
FCC: “FCC stands by decision to raise broadband prices on American Indians”
Here.
Here.
Here is the petition in United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir.):
Late last week, this article from Politico started making the rounds:
But the Trump administration contends the tribes are a race rather than separate governments, and exempting them from Medicaid work rules — which have been approved in three states and are being sought by at least 10 others — would be illegal preferential treatment. “HHS believes that such an exemption would raise constitutional and federal civil rights law concerns,” according to a review by administration lawyers.
The Tribal Technical Advisory Group sent a letter to Administrator Verma, linked to in the article and also posted here. The Dear Tribal Leader letter from CMS is attached as an appendix to that letter. As the article states, the letter says “Unfortunately, we are constrained by statute and are concerned that requiring states to exempt AI/ANs from work and community engagement requirements could raise civil rights issues” with no further explanation.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). So is the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which has recently called into question the Final Rule on collecting additional data on children in foster care, including important elements on ICWA and also LGBTQ+ kiddos.
Since the election, there have been articles describing VP Pence’s interest in HHS:
On Monday, President Donald Trump nominated Alex Azar, a former Indianapolis-based drug executive and longtime Pence supporter as Health and Human Services secretary. If confirmed, Azar would join an Indiana brain trust that already includes Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma and Surgeon General Jerome Adams. Two of Verma’s top deputies — Medicaid director Brian Neale and deputy chief of staff Brady Brookes — are former Pence hands as well, as is HHS’ top spokesman, Matt Lloyd.
Finally, in late March, Texas, which had added two additional states as plaintiffs in the first amended complaint–Indiana and Louisiana–amended their complaint in Texas v. Zinke to include HHS and Secretary Azar as defendants in the ICWA lawsuit, where Count IV claims ICWA’s placement preferences violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Here is the order in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Zinke (D.D.C.):
Briefs here.
Here are some details on this as yet non-recognized tribe:
Here are the documents and materials in the matter of Crow Indian Tribe et al v. U.S.A. et al, 17-cv-00089 (D. Mont. 2017):
Here.
Prepared for the FBA’s DC Indian Law Conference this Friday!
Kevin Washburn & Jody Cummings have posted “Explaining the Modernized Leasing and Right-of-Way Regulations for Indian Lands.”
The abstract:
The Obama Administration enacted significant reforms to the regulatory rules governing federal leasing and right of way approvals across tribal lands in Parts 162 and 169 of the Indian title of the federal regulations. These reforms had many aims. They sought to improve the environment for economic development on Indian reservations by speeding regulatory approvals, increasing predictability (by, in part, narrowing agency discretion), and increasing deference to tribal governmental decisions. The reforms sought to help tribal governments capture economic value that had previously been denied them, for example, by preventing so called “piggybacking” on pre-existing rights of way and clarifying the rules of taxation related to economic activity. On the other hand, the reforms also sought to assure greater deference to tribal decisions, even when tribal governments act for non-economic purposes. For example, the agency will now defer to decisions to lease land for less than fair market value if a tribal government wishes for approval for other reasons. This descriptive work, prepared for a Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation conference in 2017, details these regulatory reforms.
Here is the order in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County (C.D. Cal.):
Briefs here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.