The opinion in Cowan-Watts v. Smith is here.
Here are the available briefs:
tribal courts
Cherokee Nation Supreme Court Strikes Down Redistricting Plan
Here is the opinion in Cowan-Watts v. Smith: Cherokee Nation election case.
An excerpt:
The Court FINDS that the portion of the Legislative Act 22-10 purporting to create a district with a 22.8% deviation in representation is hereby determined to be unconstitutional. This Court further finds that the redistricting plan offered by Cowan-Watts is a constitutional alternative, but we do not adopt such measure because to do so would violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The final decision on redistricting is for the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council and they should act immediately to readdress the issue of redistricting by legislation.
Ray Austin & Howard Brown on the Navajo Preference in Employment Statute
Howard L. Brown & Hon. Raymond Austin will soon publish “The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Navajo Preference in Employment Act” in the New Mexico Law Review. Here is a sneak preview: Navajo Preference in EmploymentAct, 40 NMLR 17 (2010).
A very, very timely and important article, especially given the recent Ninth Circuit order and remand in EEOC v. Peabody Coal.
Prisoner Response Brief in Miranda v. Nielson (Ninth Circuit)
Parties Agree that Bustamante v. Valenzuela Ninth Circuit Appeal is Moot
Here are the materials:
Opening brief is here, and lower court materials here.
Details here, from the Bustamante filing:
Respondents argue that because Mr. Bustamante has completed his sentence and been released from custody, and because Mr. Bustamante’s habeas petition challenges only the length of his sentence, his appeal should be dismissed on grounds of mootness. Upon review of Respondents’ motion and pertinent authorities, including North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244 (1971), Mr. Bustamante, by and through undersigned counsel, agrees with Respondents’ contention and does not oppose Respondents’ motion.
Navajo President Press Release on Firing of Navajo AG, Deputy AG, and Chief Justice
Nottawseppi Huron Band Potawatomi Chief Judge Announcement
TRIBAL COUNCIL SEEKS LETTERS OF INTEREST FROM PERSONS TO SERVE ON AS CHIEF JUDGE OF THE NHBP TRIBAL COURT (TRIAL COURT). The Tribal Council is soliciting letters of interest from qualified individuals interested in being appointed to serve as Chief Judge of the NHBP Tribal Court. The individual appointed to this position would be appointed to a term of office which expiring on December 31, 2014. Letters of interest must be submitted no later than December 15, 2010 to be considered. Interested applicants should send a letter of interest and statement of qualifications (or resume) to: Homer A. Mandoka, Tribal Council Chairperson, 2221 1 ½ Mile Road, Fulton, Michigan 49052.
Qualifications for Appointment: In accordance with the NHBP Constitution, persons interested in being appointed to the Tribal Judiciary must agree to undergo an extensive background investigation. The qualifications of prospective appointees are determined by the Tribal Council in accordance with the qualifications for office contained in Article X of the NHBP Constitution which include the following:
Cert Petition in API v. Sac and Fox Tribe (Iowa)
Here: API Cert Petition.
Questions presented:
The questions presented are:
(1) Do the federal agencies’ orders establish that the Walker Council had authority to control the casino and enter the contract, such that the Tribe’s claims must be arbitrated, not litigated in tribal court?
(2) Does the tribal court lack jurisdiction over the Tribe’s claims that petitioner committed tribal-law torts by entering into the casino, investigating the dissidents’ illegal operation of the casino, and receiving payments from the Walker Council?
Lower court materials here.
Glacier Electric Coop. Reply to Cert Opposition
Here: Glacier Elec Reply Brief
Ho-Chunk Tribal Court Addresses DNA testing for Tribal Enrollment Purposes
We imagine the DNA issue will arise again and again in Indian nations all over.
Here is the opinion in Powless v. NCN Enrollment Committee (CV 10-15 Decision).
An excerpt:
The DNA test allowed into evidence by the Committee is hearsay as defined by the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (hereinafter FED. R. EVID.) 801(c). It is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Id. A written assertion is considered a “statement.” FED. R. EVID. 801(a). Thus, the DNA test‟s assertion that Mr. Powless is not the petitioner‟s father is a “statement.” A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement. FED. R. EVID. 801(b). The “declarant” of the results of the DNA test is the Oklahoma State University Human Identity Laboratory (hereinafter OSU Laboratory). At the hearing, no one from the OSU laboratory testified. The DNA test results were offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; specifically that Mr. Powless is not the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the DNA test results meet the definition of hearsay. Such hearsay is inadmissible. FED. R. EVID. 802. The DNA test does not fall under the business records hearsay exception. FED. R. EVID. 803(6) allows business records to be admitted “if witnesses testify that the records are integrated into a company’s records and relied upon in its day to day operations.” Matter of Ollag Constr. Equip. Corp., 665 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir. 1981). Although OSU laboratory may engage in DNA analyses on a daily basis, those analyses are not akin to the running of the day-to-day operations of the business. The necessary witnesses also
did not testify at the removal hearing.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.