Here: indianlaw-PC11
Best Practices & Continuing Challenges in Federal Indian Law
American Indian nations have long been innovators in tribal governance, economic empowerment, and cultural revitalization. Accordingly, this year’s conference takes a deliberate look at some of the “best practices” in federal Indian law as a means of approaching our most intractable problems. Panel discussions will cover topics including Indian finance, criminal justice, civil jurisdiction, land re-acquisition, gaming, taxation, and the environment— looking, in each instance, at a continuing Indian law challenge and the ways that tribes, agencies, legislators, courts, and others are responding to it. Other sessions will address domestic and international advocacy, along with ethical considerations in Indian law. Break-out sessions will provide “nuts and bolts” information and strategies on water rights, tribal code development (on probate, family, and child welfare issues), religious freedoms, and tribal in-house attorney issues. A special program will honor the Native American Rights Fund’s 40th Anniversary and its leadership role in best Indian law practices. We hope you will join us for a forward-thinking, practically-oriented, and inspiring conference!
Eric Eberhard has generously provided the entire conference transcript and materials packet for the Seattle University Center for Indian Law and Policy conference, “Perspectives on Tribal Land Acquisitions in 2010: A Call to Action.”
These materials easily are the finest set of documents relating to the last 30 years of the law and politics of Interior trust acquisitions.
It’s an 862-page document, about 100 MB, but worth the time to download [if you want the CD, please contact Eric or others in the program]
The members of the Native American Law Student Association (NALSA) at Michigan State University College of Law invite you to attend the following panel discussion on Monday, November 8, 2010 at 7:30pm in the Castle Boardroom of the law school building.
What Does it Mean to be Federally Recognized?
There are currently 565 federally recognized tribes in the United States, but there are many others that do not have the benefit of that distinction. John Shagonaby, Curtis Chambers, and Matthew Fletcher will discuss their unique perspectives on this issue.
John L. Shagonaby is the Chief Executive Officer of the Gun Lake (federally recognized) Tribal Gaming Authority. John started this role in March 2004. Previously, John served as the Executive Director of the Tribe’s administrative office. John has also served on the Tribal Council for 12 years as a Council Member, Treasurer and Vice-Chairman.
Curtis Chambers, Chairman of the Burt Lake Band (non-federally recognized) was re-elected on August 9, 2008. He is also the Harbormaster of Cheboygan County Marina and a devout Catholic.
Curtis’s first priority for the Burt Lake Band is to be federally recognized. His second goal is to provide housing and health care to Burt Lake Band members. He also believes that diversity in business is a necessity to help move the tribe into the future.
Matthew Fletcher is Director of the MSU Indigenous Law and Policy Center. He is a member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the first tribe to be federally recognized under the Department of Interior’s federal acknowledgment process. He is the author of a forthcoming legal and political history of the Grand Traverse Band (Michigan State University Press).
From the flyer:
Montana v. United States
Pathmarking the Field of Indian Law for Three Decades and Counting
Sponsored by UNM Law and the UNM Indian Law Program
March 24-25, 2011
Isleta Hard Rock Hotel & Casino, Albuquerque, NM
On March 24, 1981, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Montana v. United States, a case that addressed several important issues concerning tribes’ treaty rights, property interests, and sovereign governing authority on Indian reservations. Despite its inauspicious beginnings as a dispute over who controls access to a highly prized trout fishery on the Big Horn River within the exterior boundaries of the Crow Reservation, Montana since has served as juggernaut for a number of unprecedented changes to core doctrines of federal Indian law, all of them detrimental to tribes. The University of New Mexico School of Law and the UNM Indian Law Program will convene a one-and-a-half-day symposium—beginning on Thursday, March 24, 2011, thirty years to the day since the case was decided—to engage law professors, jurists, practicing attorneys, tribal leaders, and Indian law students in a wide-ranging reflection on Montana, including how the litigation originated and unfolded, how the case has impacted Indian law doctrines, and what potential pathways lie ahead for tribes and states in view of Montana’s enormous continuing influence.
Here is the flyer: UNM Montana Symposium Flyer.
The symposium will be March 24-25, 2011, at Isleta Pueblo Hard Rock Hotel & Casino.
From NARF:
Friday, October 29, 2010 – Saturday, October 30, 2010
Location: Chickasaw Nation’s WinStar World Casino
Address:
Exit 1, Interstate 35
Thackerville, OK 73459
NARF- 40 YEARS of INDIAN LAW FORUM
Friday, October 29, 2010
8:30 AM-4:30 PM
This forum will highlight four decades of Indian law and NARF’s role. We will examine current concerns and challenges within each of NARF’s priority areas and their impact on Indian law. Utilizing the tribal leaders and attorneys attending, in each priority area we will craft a shared vision for the future direction for that issue of Indian law. Each session will end with strategic outlines for how NARF can address each issue for the next 40 years.
Here: FBA Fall 2010 Agenda
Keynote Speaker: Patricia Millett, Partner and Co-Chair of the Supreme Court Practice, AkinGump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Conference co-chairs: Katie Morgan, Associate, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP and Bryan Newland, Policy Advisor to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for IndianAffairs, Department of Interior
This is just a draft agenda we’ve been asked to pass along in light of the Cardozo debacle (as with the Cardozo conference, please be advised there’s no objection or concern about the panelists named, just that there are no Indian law scholars):
First Amendment WorkshopDiscussion Group: Free Exercise in the Wake of Employment Division v. Smith
In April, 1990 the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that “an individual’s religious beliefs” do not “excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.” This embrace of a belief/ conduct dichotomy reversed years of prior precedent, discarding a regime within which burdens on free exercise were assessed under the strict scrutiny rubric normally associated with government limits on fundamental rights. This panel will explore where matters stand on the twentieth anniversary of Smith, discussing the current status of the Free Exercise Clause in the light of Smith, subsequent decisions of the Court, and parallel attempts to revive free exercise as a meaningful guarantee through federal and state statutes.
Moderator: Professor William Marshall, University of North Carolina School of Law.
Discussants: Professor Daniel Conkle, Indiana University, Maurer School of Law; Professor Caroline Corbin, University of Miami School of Law; Professor James Dwyer, College of William and Mary, Marshall-Wythe School of Law; Professor Leslie Griffin, University of Houston Law Center; Professor Kurt Lash, University of Illinois College of Law; Professor Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia School of Law; Professor Christopher Lund, Wayne State University School of Law.
By way of contrast, consider the University of South Dakota’s conference earlier this year, which featured Marci Hamilton, Chris Lund, and other prestigious scholars that do not focus on Indian law, as well as scholars and practitioners that do — Zacheree Kelin (who litigated the Arizona Snowbowl case), Klint Cowan (who litigated the Comanche religious freedom case), and Charles Grignon (an American Indian religious practitioner).
Ach, hate to point this out. Here is the agenda for last week’s major conference on Employment Division v. Smith at Cardozo, with papers to be published in the Cardozo Law Review (which last published an Indian law article in 1991, as far as we can tell).
We had a great discussion on religious freedom this last weekend with Doug Laycock, Chris Lund, and Frank Ravitch.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.