Navajo Nation Amicus Brief in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Here:

Navajo Amicus Brief in Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Petition for Hearing in Torres v. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

Here:

Petition for Rehearing

Cert petition has already been denied, here.

Rina Swentzell Walks On

We’ve known for a few days that our great friend and inspirational leader Rina Swentzell had walked on, but we’ve taken a few extra days to collect our thoughts on how to best represent her.

We invited Rina to Michigan State’s annual Indian law conference in 2008 and she was very gracious in accepting our invitation. That year’s conference was dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the Indian Civil Rights Act legislation, and would eventually lead to a volume of edited essays on the Act published in 2012, the misleadingly titled book, The Indian Civil Rights Act at 40.

We knew about Rina from her prior appearances at law school conferences, but mostly from her compelling talk (published as a law review article), “Testimony of a Santa Clara Woman.” The talk remains for us one of the most compelling pieces of legal scholarship, cutting through the theoretical doctrines of law we hold so dear to the muscle and bone of what federal Indian law means to the Indian people it affects. In some ways she might not have understood at the time (although I suspect she might have), her testimony was a powerful and yet gentle rebuke to commentators critical and even supportive of the Supreme Court’s decision in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, which had held that there was no federal forum to challenge a tribal law that discriminated against on its face against Indian women and their children.

At our 2008 conference, we invited several American Indian women from all over the country to talk about the Martinez decision, its legacy and its impact on their lives — Rina, Eva Petoskey, Rebecca Miles, Francine Jaramillo, and Gloria Valencia-Weber — as well as Catharine MacKinnon, one of the decision’s most critical detractors. To our surprise, all of the Indian women voiced strong support for the decision, despite the outcome. Rina was the center of that discussion. We published the commentaries of the Indian women next to Professor MacKinnon’s paper in the book in 2012.

Rina’s argument, over spirited objections, that the federal courts, even the Supreme Court, was no place to force change on tribal government and tribal law eventually prevailed. In 2014, the people of the Santa Clara Pueblo changed the tribal law in question in Martinez to be more reflective of tribal norms. Rina was a driving force in that tribal political movement.

We are terribly sad to hear of Rina’s passing, but we celebrate what she taught us.

Here is “Rina Swentzell, 1939-2015: Daughter says Santa Clara artist, activist fought for all but put family first.”

Yale Native Study Group Overview of Dollar General v. Mississippi Choctaw Case

Here, “YGSNA Members Prepare Amicus Briefs for the U.S. Supreme Court, DOLLAR GENERAL CORP. vs. MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS.” An excerpt:Shame on Dollar General

In 2000, the Dollar General Corporation entered into a series of agreements with the Mississippi Band Choctaw Indians to open a Dollar General store on the Tribe’s lands in Mississippi.  Numerous national chains and corporations maintain commercial establishments on tribal lands, leasing lands, facilities, and related commercial venues for their enterprises.  Such leases and agreements form contracts that are executed by both tribal and corporate attorneys.

Dollar General agreed not only to lease lands from the Tribe for its retail business but also to enter into the Tribe’s Youth Opportunity Program, which places tribal youth in working environments.  In Summer 2003, a 13-year-old entered this program and was placed within the Dollar General store under the supervision of a store manager who, the minor and his parents allege, sexually assaulted him.  Since the United States Supreme Court, in 1978, declared that Tribal Governments may no longer exercise their inherent criminal jurisdiction over Indians who commit crimes on tribal lands, the minor, his family, and the Tribe looked to the local U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecution. The United States declined to proceed with a criminal complaint, and the minor and his parents then sued Dollar General and its employee in tribal court, seeking damages relating to the child’s injuries. The District Court and Mississippi Band of Choctaw Supreme Court both sided with the minor.

Menominee Indian Tribe v. United States Materials

Here are the briefs and other materials:

Merits Briefs

Menominee Tribe Brief

US Brief

Amicus Briefs

NCAI Amicus Brief

Cert Stage Materials

Menominee Indian Tribe Cert Petition

US cert response brief

Lower Court Materials

–D.C. Circuit 

opinion

Menominee Opening Brief 2013

IHS Brief

Menominee Reply Brief

–DCT

DCT Order Dismissing Menominee Claims

IHS Motion to Dismiss

Menominee Motion for Summary J

–D.C. Circuit (2010)

Opinion

Respondents Brief in Menominee Indian Tribe v. United States

Here:

US Brief

 

Complete Listing of Amicus Briefs Supporting Respondent in Dollar General v. Mississippi Choctaw

Here:

amicus_merits_us

ACLU Amicus Brief 

13-1496bsacPuyallupTribeOfIndians

13-1496 Amici Brief States

13-1496 bsac Historians and Legal Scholars

13-1496bsacNationalCongressOfAmericanIndiansEtAl

13-1496bsacNationalIndigenousWomensResourceCenter

13-1496 bsac Cherokee Nation et al

These briefs are also available at our regular page of background materials on the case, along with all the other briefs so far.

Additional Amicus Briefs in Dollar General Supporting Mississippi Choctaw

Here:

National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center Brief

Amicus Brief from the States of Mississippi, Washington, Oregon, North Dakota, New Mexico and Colorado

Initial Amicus Briefs posted here.

We’re posting all materials here.

Initial Amicus Briefs in Dollar General Supporting Mississippi Choctaw

Here:

ACLU Amicus Brief 

13-1496bsacPuyallupTribeOfIndians

We’re posting all materials here.

Mississippi Choctaw Merits Brief

Materials in the matter of Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians:

No. 13-1496 Brief for Respondents