Here are the materials in LaRose v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Minn.):
Prior post here.
tribal courts
New Student Scholarship on Tribal Courts and Environmental Tort Litigation
Helia Bidad has published “The Power of Tribal Courts in Ongoing Environmental-Tort Litigation” in the Yale Law Journal. Here is the abstract:
Cities, counties, and states across the country are bringing environmental and climate tort suits to hold environmental tortfeasors accountable. These cases are commonly brought in state and federal court, but the possibility of bringing these suits in tribal courts has largely been left out of the discussion. In the wake of attacks on tribal sovereignty in the form of tribal jurisdiction stripping, this Essay uses an original empirical analysis of 308 cases to understand the circumstances in which tribal-court jurisdiction currently exists for tribal members to sue nonmembers for environmental torts in tribal court. This Essay makes recommendations for how to strategically bring these suits and highlights important considerations for tribal sovereignty.
Florida State Bar Authorizes Practices of Lawyer Admitted in St. Croix Tribal Court
Nicholas Stamates, a recent UMich law grad, suggested I post the letter he filed with the Florida State Bar. The letter led to the bar authorizing him to practice as “house counsel” in Florida on the basis of his admission to practice in the St. Croix Chippewa courts. Interesting development. Here is the letter:
California Federal Court Dismisses Tribal Member Property Dispute after Failure to Exhaust Tribal Appellate Remedies [Round Valley Indian Tribe]
Here are the materials in Pacino v. Oliver (N.D. Cal.):
71 Tribal President Motion to Dismiss
98 DCT Order to Show Cause re Tribal Exhaustion
103 Round Valley Amicus Suppemental Brief
California Federal Court Decides Lexington Insurance Co. v. Mueller [Cabazon Band of Mission Indians]
Here are the materials in Lexington Insurance Co. v. Mueller (C.D. Cal.):
Fletcher on Due Process and Equal Protection in Michigan Anishinaabe Courts
The Michigan State Law Review Forum has published my short article, “Due Process and Equal Protection in Michigan Anishinaabe Courts.” Check it out.
Litigation in North Dakota Federal Court over Turtle Mountain TERO Power to Assess Nonmember Business on Trust Lands
Here are the materials so far in Hanson v. Parisien (D.N.D.):
MSU Indian Law Clinic Funding Announcement and Job Opportunity
It is with great pleasure to announce the Indian Law Clinic at MSU received an initial $200,000 to fund a Tribal Appellate Clerk Project from the Luce Foundation for the next 18 months. The funding allows us to assign students to tribal appellate courts to assist with research, memo writing, bench briefs and draft opinions. The Clinic is officially now seeking for tribal clients, so please reach out to fort@msu.edu if you or your tribe might be interested in receiving these pro bono services from the Clinic.
IN ADDITION, the funding allows us to hire a Fellow/Coordinator for this project! Please apply here:
While this is a soft funded position with a time limit, we have an opportunity to reapply for the funding. In addition, prior ILC/ILPC fellows (including me!) have gone on to great job opportunities after working with us. The job includes working with students, coordinating with tribes and tribal courts, and (most exciting) taking students on site visits to the tribes we work with! We are looking to hire as soon as possible.
Thank you very much to the Luce Foundation and MSU’s own Foundation office for working with the Clinic to get us this funding.
Navajo Prevails in D.C. Circuit over Interior in Judicial Funding Dispute
Here is the opinion in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior.
An excerpt:
We conclude that the ISDEAA does not require the DOI to approve Navajo Nation’s funding requests for the years 2017 through 2020 but its regulations do. The 2017 proposal requested “the renewal of a term contract” with “no material [or] substantial change to the scope or funding” of the previous contract, see 25 C.F.R. § 900.33, and the 2018 through 2020 proposals are “successor[s]” to and “substantially the same as” the 2017 proposal, see id. § 900.32. The DOI therefore violated 25 C.F.R. §§ 900.32 and 900.33 when it considered the section 5321(a)(2) declination criteria and partially declined the Tribe’s proposed AFAs. Accordingly, we reverse the district court.
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.