The Wyoming Supreme Court decided Yellowbear v. Wyoming, finding that the Wind River Reservation had been diminished in upholding the conviction of Yellowbear (h/t Indianz).
Once again, a state court has been placed in the position of adjudicating Indian reservation boundaries in the context of of a criminal case.
A case that I suspect has a pretty good shot at being heard by the Supreme Court, Jones v. Jennings, will be on the Court’s conference agenda for January 18, 2008. The case involves the smashing of the Narragansett Tribe’s fledgling smokeshop by state officers. Jones, the police officer, broke the ankle of Jennings, a tribal member, during the conflagration (which was caught on tape and played all over Indian Country for months).
In particular, the questions presented are:
From RezNet’s TriBaLOG:
Following is a statement from the office of Rodney M. Bordeaux, president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe:
On December 19th, 2007 four individuals calling themselves the Lakota Freedom Delegation held a press conference at the Plymouth Congregational Church in Washington DC where they announced a plan to withdraw from all Treaties signed by Indian Tribes with the United States.
From the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers:
Milford Moments in Time
According to the book “Ten Minutes Ahead of the Rest of the World, A History of Milford,” Elizur and Stanley Ruggles were attracted to the Milford area back in 1831 because of its flowing river. They were also smitten by the beauty of the land, and so they staked their claim. However, both the local waterways and rich surrounding land were utilized by many people long before these pioneers settled the area.
We previously published the indictment here. There have been two motions to dismiss the indictment and a motion to suppress evidence. There has been no federal response yet. Here are those materials:
Defendants Motion to Dismiss Count 1
Link.
This is a criminal case in Washington state with possible implications for any tribe with preserved treaty hunting and fishings. The crime was committed by Cayenne (allegedly, I suppose) off the reservation, involving a violation of state fishing laws (i.e., gillnetting). The trial court issued an order upon conviction that the tribal member could not use gillnets even on the reservation because of this off-reservation crime. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed that aspect of the punishment.
Now the State is petitioning the State Supreme Court for review.The State AG filed an amicus in support of the petition. Some of the arguments made by the AG are troubling in the least.
Here are the materials:
This long-running case involves the Navajo tribal preference statute. The district court dismissed the claim under Rule 19 (one of my faves!). Here are the Ninth Circuit materials:
Here’s the commentary from the activists. And here are some materials on the mine from the Great Lakes Natural Resource Center in Ann Arbor. Here’s our previous post on the subject.
We’ll post the complaint when we get it.
You can read my newest Indian Country Today editorial here or here.
Here’s the text:
Each year, the U.S. Supreme Court chooses which appeals it wishes to decide. In most years, the court decides to hear fewer than 80 cases out of several thousand appeals. These usually include cases in which there is a split of authority in lower courts (often called a ”circuit split,” referencing the 13 federal circuit courts of appeals), cases in which a lower court has committed a gross error or cases in which there is a critical constitutional issue at stake. Cases in which there is no split, cases that will affect only a few people, cases involving simple correction of a minor lower court error or cases involving an unimportant issue are unlikely to be heard by the court.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.