Washington COA Affirms Dismissal of Tulalip Suit against Insurance Cos. Over COVID Business Losses

Here are the available materials in Tulalip Tribes v. Lexington Insurance Co.:

NARF Launches The Headwaters Report

The Headwaters Report – is a new digital blog site, bulletin, and source for Tribal water law information and resourcesThe Headwaters Report presents accessible information on foundational Tribal water law concepts and practices as well as current and emerging water-related issues.

    The first article focuses on the Clean Water Act, a 50-year-old law that, among other things, allows Tribes to assert regulatory jurisdiction over water quality and activities that impact water quality within reservation boundaries. In our next Report update, we plan to address the changes the Trump Administration is attempting to make to the Clean Water Act and how that may affect Tribal Nations.

    In the Report you will also find several slide decks on Tribal water rights information, including one on the basics of Tribal water rightsgeneral stream adjudications, and Indian water rights settlements. We intend The Headwaters Report to act not only as a clearinghouse for Tribal water law and policy information, but as a place to bring questions and to get guidance.

    Kansas Federal Court Mostly Dismisses Civil Rights Action Against Prairie Band Cops

    Here are the materials in Musick v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (D. Kan.):

    Washington Federal Court Remands Tribal Climate Change Claims to State Court

    Here are the materials in the consolidated cases, Makah Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobile Corp. (W.D. Wash.) and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobile Corp. (W.D. Wash.):

    South Dakota Federal Court Awards $39M to Victims of Negligent High-Speed Chase by Flandreau Tribal Police

    Here are the materials in Roemen v. United States (D.S.D.):

    Alexandra Fay on the History of the Courts of Indian Offenses

    Alexandra Fay has posted “Courts of Indian Offenses, Courts of Indian Resistance,” forthcoming in the Michigan Law Review (Go Blue), on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

    In the late nineteenth century, the Department of the Interior created the Courts of Indian Offenses with the express goal of eliminating elements of Native culture through the coercive power of criminal law. The courts stood on dubious constitutional grounds, they were almost universally replaced by tribal courts in the twentieth century, and they have been widely derided as crude assimilationist tools.

    This Article examines the Courts of Indian Offenses to study how law and legal institutions operate as sites of colonial struggle in the American context. The Courts of Indian Offenses were formally created to criminalize Native culture. In practice, they were more complicated. Native judges entrusted with Washington’s assimilationist designs frequently declined to enforce the “Indian offenses,” instead using the courts to resolve crimes and disputes recognized by their tribal communities.

    The Article uses three decades of annual reports from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and archival records from three Courts of Indian Offenses to illustrate the structure and function of the courts at the turn of the twentieth century. It engages with concepts from subaltern studies, tribal legal studies, and law and colonialism literatures to explore how tribal law adapted and survived despite the formal imposition of Anglo-American legal forms. The Article ultimately suggests that the Courts of Indian Offenses may be understood as contested institutions through which tribal leaders preserved tribal self-government against the imperatives of empire.

    An exact representation of the original Court of Indian Offenses. . . .

    Minnesota SCT Justice Anne McKeig to Visit MSU ILPC This Thursday

    Complaint in Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium v. Kennedy

    Here:

    Kansas Federal Court Allows Prairie Band to Amend Complaint against Sheriff

    Here are the new materials in Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Morse (D. Kan.):

    26 PBPN Response to 25

    27 PBPN Motion to Amend Complaint

    27-1 Proposed Amended Complaint

    28 County Reply re 25

    29 County Response to Motion to Amend

    30 PBPN Reply ISO 27

    31 DCT Order Granting 27

    Prior post here.

    South Point Energy v. Arizona DOR Cert Petition

    Here is the petition in South Point Energy Center LLC v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue:

    Lower court materials here.

    Arizona BIO