Here is the opinion in Roberts v. Kelly:
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials are here.
tribal courts
Fifth Circuit Panel Issues Amended Opinion in Dolgencorp v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Here is the amended opinion:
The main amendment appears to be that the panel will no longer rely upon the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Water Wheel — and instead finds that the tribe retains jurisdiction over the underlying tort claim under the Montana 1 consensual relations exception.
The court also voted 9-5 to deny the en banc petition: CA5 Order Denying Dolgencorp En Banc Petition
En banc petition materials here.
Panel materials here.
Lower court decision and materials here.
News Preview of Nooksack Election; Disenrollments Hang in Balance
Peacemaking Event at Chickasaw — April 23-24, 2014
Here:
LA Times Article on Yurok Tribal Court Judge Abinanti
Here.
Abby Abinanti squints at her docket. “The court is going to call — the court is going to put on its glasses,” she says dryly, reaching to grab her readers and snatch some candy from a staff member.
As chief judge of the Yurok Tribal Court, Abinanti wears no robe. On this day, she’s in jeans and cowboy boots, her silver hair spilling down the back of a black down vest. In contrast to her longtime role as a San Francisco Superior Court commissioner, she doesn’t perch above those who come before her; she shares a table with them.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-yurok-tribal-judge-20140305-dto,0,320867.htmlstory#ixzz2v8BFclZJ
3rd Midwest Peacemaking Conference — Little River Band — June 11-13, 2014
Here:
Agenda for Alabama-Coushatta Judicial Symposium April 24, 2014
Here (PDF):
Kristen Carpenter and Lorie Graham on Human Rights and Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
Kristen Carpenter and Lorie Graham have posted a very compelling and powerful paper about the Supreme Court’s decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. It is required reading for anyone interested in the case, and is destined to be the definitive paper on the international human rights aspects of the case.
The article is titled Human Rights to Culture, Family, and Self-Determination: The Case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. Here is the abstract:
The well-being of indigenous children is a subject of major concern for indigenous peoples and human rights advocates alike. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not prevent the adoption of a Cherokee child by a non-Indian couple. This occurred over the objections of her Cherokee biological father, extended family, and Tribal Nation. After the decision, Baby Girl’s father and the adoptive couple contested the matter in a number of proceedings, none of which considered the child’s best interests as an Indian child. The tribally-appointed attorney for Baby Girl, as well as the National Indian Child Welfare Association and National Congress for American Indians, began examining additional venues for advocacy. Believing that the human rights of Baby Girl, much like those of other similarly situated indigenous children, were being violated in contravention of the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights, and other instruments of international law, they asked us to bring the matter to the attention of the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples Rights (“UNSR”). We prepared a “statement of information” to alert the UNSR of the human rights violations occurring in the case. With the permission of the attorneys and organizations involved, this chapter introduces the Baby Girl case, contextualizes the claims in international human rights law, and then reproduces the statement of information, and portions of the UNSR’s subsequent public statement. It concludes with an update on the Baby Girl case and broader discussion about the potential for using international law and legal forums to protect the human rights of indigenous children.
NAICJA Training RFP
Here:
Phil Tinker on Tribal Authority to Regulate Nonmember Conduct in Indian Country
Phil Tinker has posted his paper, “In Search of a Civil Solution: Tribal Authority to Regulate Nonmember Conduct in Indian Country,” forthcoming in the September 2014 issue of the Tulsa Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
Violence in Indian Country is epidemic. Tribal governments, which ostensibly have primary responsibility for keeping the peace within their territory, are hampered by restrictive federal laws that prohibit Tribes from exercising criminal authority over non-Indians. This is so even where those non-Indian lawbreakers live on the reservation and commit acts of violence against tribal members. Instead, the federal government is responsible for investigating and prosecuting most on-reservation crime. This irrational system is the product an archaic federal policies dating back to the 19th century that have never been adequate to protect Indian communities.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.