Here is the opinion in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County:
Research
National Indian Law Library Bulletin (7/1/2020)
Here:
We have scoured the web. Here are some of the latest materials related to Indian Law. Find all of the latest updates at narf.org/nill/bulletins/
U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2019-2020update.html
Petition for certiorari was filed in one case on 6/19/20:
United States v. Cooley (Jurisdiction)
Petition for certiorari was denied in one case on 6/29/20:
Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, et al. v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, et al. (Administrative Procedure Act)
Federal Courts Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2020.html
- Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County (Criminal Jurisdiction)
- New Holy v. Department of the Interior (Tribal Constitutions)
- Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin (CARES Act)
- Lorry van Chase v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (Freedom of Information Act)
State Courts Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2020.html
Lavallie v. Jay (Jurisdiction; Personal Injury)
Hopi Tribe v. Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership (Attorney Fees)
U.S. Legislation – 116th Congress Bulletin
https://narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/116_uslegislation.html
- S.4059 – A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to States, political subdivisions of States, Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, community-based entities, and primary care and behavioral health organizations to address behavioral health needs caused by the public health emergency declared with respect to COVID-19.
- S.4079 – A bill to authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease or transfer certain land, and for other purposes.
- S.4081 – A bill to provide a grant program for elementary schools, secondary schools, and institutions of higher education to help offset costs associated with complying with guidelines, recommendations, and other public health communications issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or a State, Indian Tribe, Tribal organization, or locality related to mitigating the hazards presented by COVID-19.
- S.4090 – A bill to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, and for other purposes.
- S.4113 – A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide grants to States and Indian Tribes to deploy affordable, high-speed broadband to unserved and underserved areas.
Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin (contact us if you need help finding a copy of an article)
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2020.html
- Indian lives matter: Pandemics and inherent tribal powers.
- Codifying the rights of nature.
- Running for missing and murdered Native women.
- Yurok Tribe fishing court.
News Bulletin
https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
This week, in brief:
- ‘Wear your mask, do your part’: Tribal citizens in New Mexico bear brunt of coronavirus
- ‘End of an era’: American Indian Services closes after 49 years
- Navajo Nation president says New Mexico still failing students
- Tribes’ human remains and cultural items have been scattered across the U.S. Here’s how they get returned
- Judge: Alaska corporations can get tribal virus relief money
- Blackfeet propose permanent protections for Badger Two Medicine
- Speaker Seth Damon signs Navajo Nation Diné Pride Week proclamation to recognize equality progress
- Native women law students excluded from so-called “Women of Color in Law Schools” study
- Knowing, rethinking a shared history
Senate Committee Hearing: “Oversight Hearing on ‘Evaluating the Response and Mitigation to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Native Communities’ and Legislative Hearing to Receive Testimony on S. 3650′”
Here.
Arizona COA Holds Hopi Tribe Owes $300K in Attorney Fees to Arizona Snowbowl
Here is the opinion in Hopi Tribe v. Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership:
The case is on remand from the Arizona Supreme Court, which rejected the tribe’s public nuisance theories here.
Federal Court Dismisses Effort by Oglala Sioux Constitutional Reform Committee to Support Secretarial Election
Here are the materials in New Holy v. Dept. of the Interior (D.S.D.):
Kansas Court Rule on Recognition of Tribal Court Judgments
St. Regis Mohawk Sues Insurance Company over Pandemic Losses
Here is the complaint in Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co. (N.D. N.Y.):
Puyallup Tribe Amicus Brief on Washington Referendum on Motor Vehicle Taxes
Here is the brief in Garfield County v. State of Washington (Wash. S. Ct.):
Children’s Bureau Letter on Termination of Parental Rights During COVID
Childrens-Bureau-Letter-Termination-of-Parental-Rights-and-Adoption-Assistance
A decision to file a TPR petition should be made in light of the impediments that a parent might face as a result of the pandemic. An agency should evaluate carefully whether parents have had a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that they have made the necessary efforts to reunify with their children before taking that step.
As such, I urge agencies to continue to consider the totality of each family’s circumstances prior to filing a TPR petition. During the pandemic and its aftermath, agencies also may want to consider instituting protocols that provide an extra layer of review prior to filing a TPR petition.
Ninth Circuit Decides Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County
Here is the opinion. An excerpt:
This case presents the question whether the State of Washington may exercise criminal jurisdiction over members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation who commit crimes on reservation land. To answer that question, we must interpret a 2014 Washington State Proclamation that retroceded—that is, gave back—“in part,” civil and criminal jurisdiction over the Yakama Nation to the United States, but retained criminal jurisdiction over matters “involving non-Indian defendants and non-Indian victims.” If “and,” as used in that sentence, is conjunctive, then the State retained jurisdiction only over criminal cases in which no party—suspects or victims—is an Indian. If, by contrast, “and” is disjunctive and should be read as “or,” then the State retained jurisdiction if any party is a non-Indian. We conclude, based on the entire context of the Proclamation, that “and” is disjunctive and must be read as “or.” We therefore affirm the district court.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.