Federal Court Dismisses Little River Band’s Challenge to NLRB Jurisdiction for Lack of Jurisdiction

Here is that opinion: LRB v. NLRB

An excerpt:

Plaintiff has simply not established federal-question jurisdiction. The NLRA does not create a cause of action for a plaintiff in federal district court. To the extent plaintiff’s right to relief depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law, namely, the NLRB’s exercise of jurisdiction over it, that question is properly decided by the NLRA in the first instance, then the court of appeals. This Court lacks jurisdiction to prevent the NLRB from proceeding on the charge that plaintiff is engaged in an unfair labor practice.

Briefs and other materials here and here.

Judicial Symposium for Michigan-Wisconsin-Minnesota Tribal-State-Federal Judges

The conference is Oct. 12-13, 2010, at the Grand Traverse Resort just outside of Traverse City, Michigan. Come see the colors!!!!

Here is the flyer: Flyer and Agenda.

The speakers include Walter Echo-Hawk, Hon. Korey Wahwassuck, and Hon. David Rausch.

And on the evening of October 11, Walter will be reading from his book at Horizon Books.

Book Announcement: Kirsty Gover’s “Tribal Constitutionalism”

Oxford University Press will publish Kirsty Gover’s “Tribal Constitutionalism: States, Tribes and the Governance of Membership” in December.

Here is the blurb:

Recognised tribes are increasingly prominent players in settler state governance, but in the wide-ranging debates about tribal self-governance, little has been said about tribal self-constitution.

Who are the members of tribes, and how are they chosen? Tribes in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States are now obliged to adopt written constitutions as a condition of recognition, and to specify the criteria used to select members. This book presents findings from a comparative study of nearly eight hundred current and historic tribal constitutions, most of which are not in the public domain.

Kirsty Gover examines the strategies adopted by tribes and states to deal with the new legal distinction between indigenous people (defined by settler governments) and tribal members (defined by tribal governments). She highlights the important fact that the two categories are imperfectly aligned. Many indigenous persons are not tribal members, and some tribal members are not legally indigenous. Should legal indigenous status be limited to persons enrolled in recognized tribes? What is to be done about the large and growing proportion of indigenous peoples who are not enrolled in a tribe, and do not live near their tribal territories? This book approaches these complex questions head-on.

Using tribal membership criteria as a starting point, this book provides a critical analysis of current political and sociolegal theories of tribalism and indigeneity, and draws on legal doctrine, policy, demographic data and tribal practice to provide a comparative evaluation of tribal membership governance in the western settler states.

Kirsty Gover on Comparative Tribal Constitutions

Kirsty Gover has published Comparative Tribal Constitutionalism: Membership Governance in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States in Law and Social Inquiry (Summer 2010) (pdf). Here is the abstract:

In the “self-governance era” of indigenous-state relations, there is a growing interest in the first-order question of tribal governance: who are the members of recognized tribes, and how are they chosen? Tribal constitutions contain formal tribal membership criteria but are not ordinarily in the public domain. This article presents findings from a study of the membership rules used in more than seven hundred current and historical tribal constitutions and codes. It offers a comparative analysis to explain significant differences between North American and Australasian tribal constitutionalism, particularly in the administration of descent, multiple membership, and disenrollment. It advances the argument that tribes self-constitute in ways that are more relational and less ascriptive than is suggested in current political theory and policy; that existing representations of tribes obscure nontribal expressions of indigeneity, on which tribes depend; and that these expressions should be officially supported in public law and policy.

Navajo Supreme Court Opinion Denying Pres. Shirley from Running for a Third Term at Navajo

Here is the opinion in Todacheene v. Shirley.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Tax on Non-Indians

Here is the opinion in Lanphere v. Wright.

Briefs here.

Challenge to Tribal Authority to Tax Non-Indians on Reservation Land

The case is Lanphere v. Wright (CA9, no decision yet), and is a part of Paul Matheson’s ongoing efforts to avoid tribal, state, and federal law (here and here).

Here are the materials in this case:

Lanphere DCT Order

Lanphere Opening Brief w addendum

Wright Response Brief

Lanphere Reply Brief

Tribal Issues in New Arizona Immigration Law

Here are the materials:

Arizona Immigration Statutes Outline

Tribal Immigration Enforcement Issues

Navajo Tribal Identification

Navajo Reapportionment Map

From the Navajo Times via Pechanga:

The reapportionment map representing the plan approved Friday. PDFDownload a large-format PDF version of the map. (2.1 MB, requires Adobe Reader.)

* * *

The Navajo Board of Election Supervisors approved on Friday a reapportionment plan dividing the Navajo Nation into 24 voting districts for a new, reduced tribal council election.

The board also voted to extend the filing deadline for council delegate candidates by one business day, to 5 p.m. Monday, June 14. This will give candidates at least a little time to acquaint themselves with the new apportionment plan, the board said.

“This is good,” said President Joe Shirley Jr., who presented the plan approved by the board. “This is something we should have done a long time ago. We are moving along and progressing.”
The board unanimously approved both measures.

Continue reading

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds State Hot Pursuit Criminal Search in Indian Country

But recognizes that the tribal government could enact legislation to prohibit such hot pursuits.

Here is the opinion in State v. Harrison: New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion.