In United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation (No. 09-846) … here: TON Cert Opp
The cert petition and questions presented are here.
Fully expect this to show up in the SCOTUSblog petitions to watch in a few weeks.
Supreme Court
Native America Calling Carcieri Radio Show Archived
Monday, March 22, 2010– The Carcieri Fix: (listen)
Last year the Supreme Court ruled in Carcieri v. Salazar that language in the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act does not allow the Interior Secretary to take land into trust for the Narragansett Tribe of Rhode Island because the tribe was not federally recognized in 1934. Tribal leaders immediately turned to their allies in Congress to pass a “Carcieri Fix” – a bill that would reverse the court’s decision. But the fix has not been passed. Does Indian Country have the clout to pull it off? Guests are Matthew Fletcher (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa/Chippewa) of the Michigan State University College of Law and Jason Giles (Muscogee Creek) Deputy Executive Director/National Indian Gaming Association.
Carcieri Fix Talk Monday on Native America Calling
Here:
Monday, March 22, 2010 (1-2 PM, eastern) – The Carcieri Fix:
Last year the Supreme Court ruled in Carcieri v. Salazar that language in the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act does not allow the Interior Secretary to take land into trust for the Narragansett Tribe of Rhode Island because the tribe was not federally recognized in 1934. Tribal leaders immediately turned to their allies in Congress to pass a “Carcieri Fix” – a bill that would reverse the court’s decision. But the fix has not been passed. Does Indian Country have the clout to pull it off? Guests include Matthew Fletcher (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa/Chippewa) of the Michigan State University College of Law.
Walter Echohawk’s Ten Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided Book Announcement
In the Courts of the Conqueror: The 10 Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided
Book website here.
Press release here: InTheCourts_release.
Blurb:
The fate of Native Americans has been dependent in large part upon the recognition and enforcement of their legal, political, property, and cultural rights as indigenous peoples by American courts. Most people think that the goal of the judiciary, and especially the US Supreme Court, is to achieve universal notions of truth and justice. In this in-depth examination, however, Walter R. Echo-Hawk reveals the troubling fact that American law has rendered legal the destruction of Native Americans and their culture.
Echo-Hawk analyzes ten cases that embody or expose the roots of injustice and highlight the use of nefarious legal doctrines. He delves into the dark side of the courts, calling for a paradigm shift in American legal thinking. Each case study includes historical, contemporary, and political context from a Native American perspective, and the case’s legacy on Native America. In the Courts of the Conqueror is a comprehensive history of Indian Country, from a new and unique viewpoint. It is a vital contribution to American history.
Reminder: Frank Pommersheim Event on March 23
Hogan v. Kaltag Cert Petition News
From Indianz. The comments of Sen. Bill Wielechowsk read like a cert pool memo (and agreeably so):
“The facts in Kaltag are this,” said Sen. Bill Wielechowski (D), The Anchorage Daily News reported. “You had a Mom who was convicted of murder and was a drinker. You had a Dad who wanted nothing to do with the child. You had the Kaltag tribe that took custody of the child, adopted her to residents who lived in Huslia. All participants consented to the tribal court doing this, all were Native, no one raised any concerns about the due process provided by the tribal court. The child is 10 years old, happy and healthy with the family, and the state comes in and wants to stop this.”
Petitioner’s Brief in Dolan v. U.S. — Criminal Case Involving Mescalero Apache Indian in Supreme Court
Briones v. U.S. Cert Petition
This involves crimes committed on and around the Gila River Indian Community, prosecuted under the Major Crimes Act. Here is the petition: Briones v US Cert Petition.
It looks like a pair of interesting questions. There may be a decent shot for review if the petition’s representations are correct.
Questions presented:
1. Whether the District Court and the Circuit Court erred in admitting the out-of-court statements of Arlo Eschief to the jury by the prosecution through testimony of a law enforcement agent constituting hearsay testimony in violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause?
2. Whether the District Court had the jurisdiction under the General Crimes Act 18 U.S.C. § 1152 and the Major Crimes Act 18 U.S.C. § 1153, to apply federal statutes of crimes on Indian land not expressly authorized by Federal statute?
Cert Petition in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps
Here: Oglala Sioux Tribe v. US Army Corps Cert Petition
Lower court materials here and here.
Questions presented:
1. Does the 5-year statute of limitations of Section 12 of the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946 (“ICCA”), 60 Stat. 1049, 1052 (formerly codified at 25 U.S.C. § 70k (repealed)), which applies only to claims accruing no later than August 13, 1946, bar federal court jurisdiction over an Indian tribe’s claim that the Government breached its trust responsibility to consult with the tribe before taking significant actions adversely affecting the preservation and protection of the numerous items and sites of the tribe’s cultural and historic heritage located on federal lands within the tribe’s aboriginal territory, specifically before making the transfers of federal lands authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of August 17, 1999, Pub. L. 106-53, Title VI, §§ 601-609, 113 Stat. 269 (“WRDA”), where the tribe’s breach-of-duty-to-consult claim does not involve either an historical land claim for money damages or the revision of treaties, contracts or agreements between the tribe and the United States, and where the breach occurred no earlier than 2002 when the WRDA transfers began?
2. Does an Indian tribe have standing to pursue its claim that the Government breached its trust responsibility to consult with the tribe before taking significant actions adversely affecting the preservation and protection of the numerous items and sites of the tribe’s cultural and historic heritage located on lands within the tribe’s aboriginal territory, where the merit of the tribe’s non-frivolous contention, that it has a legally protected interest in the tribe’s aboriginal territory based on the Government’s trust relationship with the Indian tribes, must be assumed in assessing the tribe’s standing to sue? Continue reading
Supreme Court Rulings Forcing Shutdown of EPA Enforcement
NYTs article here.
An excerpt:
As a result, some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them. And pollution rates are rising.
Companies that have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters are not being prosecuted, according toEnvironmental Protection Agencyregulators working on those cases, who estimate that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the last four years.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.