Here are the materials in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. National Labor Relations Board (E.D. Mich.):
SCIT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
TT’s own Andrew Adams is co-counsel on this one.
Here are the materials in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. National Labor Relations Board (E.D. Mich.):
SCIT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
TT’s own Andrew Adams is co-counsel on this one.
Here are the materials in Desautel v. Dupris (E.D. Wash.):
Here. An excerpt:
There are three federally recognized Cherokee tribes in the United States including the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (NC), the Cherokee Nation (OK) and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (OK). According to a list compiled in March by the Cherokee Nation, there are 212 fabricated groups claiming to be Cherokee tribes. “Fraud List” compiled by Cherokee Nation
Some of those groups are from areas thousands of miles from traditional Cherokee territory including the Northwest Cherokee Deer Clan in Oregon. And, several aren’t even in the United States at all such as the Chewah Cherokee Nation in Manitoba, Canada.
The EBCI Tribal Council passed a resolution – No. 6 (2011) – during annual council on Thursday, Oct. 13 to establish the Cherokee Identity Protection Committee.
“It’s something that we’ve had an ongoing issue with and it’s something that’s important,” said Big Cove Rep. Perry Shell who submitted the resolution passed on Thursday. “Many times people are taking our identity.” Continue reading
CTV recently released (October 4) a tiny story on what could be a monolithic advancement for the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia, and in turn for aboriginals throughout Canada. Here’s the story. However, be forewarned, this small piece, not even 200 words, barely offers any substance and reads more like an Onion article (“[O]ne of the most pressing details to work out for the Mi’kmaq is to find a place to put a House of Assembly”). And perhaps tellingly, Federal Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Minister John Duncan would not offer comment on it. Curioser and curioser. Stay tuned…
Douglas Sanderson has posted “Commercial Law and Indigenous Sovereignty” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Despite the ubiquitous nature of commercial law, discussions about Indigenous sovereignty tend to focus on the big picture themes of lands, resources and economic development without any real thought about the commercial law framework within which these transactions will take place. In this paper, I argue that commercial law is a crucial, though overlooked, aspect of Indigenous sovereignty. I propose that through the development and implementation of a commercial Code and Tribunal, Indigenous communities stand to capture greater economic efficiencies, promote political independence, and advance down a path towards developing institutions that are both modern and based in traditional knowledge bases and dispute resolution mechanisms.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Williams (W.D. Okla.):
DCT Order Denying Williams Motion to Dismiss
Here is the indictment:
Last month, the Suquamish Tribal Council amended its existing Marriage and Divorce Ordinance to permit marriages regardless of the couple’s gender. The amendment passed by a unanimous vote of the council and allows same-sex couples to receive the same treatment and benefits as opposite-sex couples. At least one person entering the marriage must be an enrolled member of the Suquamish Tribe. The amendment also provides for tribe members in civil unions entered in recognized jurisdictions to convert the union into a Suquamish Tribal marriage.
The issue of sexual orientation is not controversial in the Suquamish community. I have found no mention of sexual orientation as an issue in my research of the Tribe’s oral history or in non-Indian archival data. Some elders have stated that traditional views on same-sex interactions suggested that these individuals may have possessed unique spiritual associations. Research indicates that sexual orientation was probably not an area of great moral concern or discussion in Suquamish society before interaction with non-Indians. That same cultural value remains within the community today.
This tribal community of 1,050 members is sensitive to discrimination. Many members have experienced mistreatment based on race in their own lifetime, so the council understands the importance of ensuring that tribe members do not face discrimination in their own tribal laws, including due to sexual orientation. Tribe members view the amendment as an expression of the high value they place on inclusiveness and acceptance of diverse views within our community. This amendment embodies the Suquamish people’s ultimate exercise of its inherent right as a sovereign government to address the essential social question of whom Suquamish Tribe members can choose to marry.
The New York Times’ “Room for Debate” series has published a series of articles on the Cherokee Freedmen controversy.
Kevin Noble Maillard, law professor, Syracuse University
Cara Cowan-Watts, speaker, Cherokee Council
Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Turtle Talk law blog
Rose Cuison Villazor, Hofstra University Law School
Heather Williams, Freedmen descendent
Carla D. Pratt, law professor, Penn State University
Tiya Miles, historian, University of Michigan
Joanne Barker, associate professor, American Indian studies
Here are the updated materials in Vann v. Salazar (D. D.C.):
Cherokee Nation Response to Vann Motion
The Vann motion is here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.