Here are the materials in St. Germain v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Wash.):
doc. 38 – Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment
doc. 41 – Response Re Motion to Dismiss
doc. 42 – Reply Re Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
doc. 44 – Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Arizona Law Review announces its publication of Galanda and Dreveskracht’s piece entitled Curing the Tribal Disenrollment Epidemic: In Search of a Remedy, which has been described as “a must read for all of Indian country” by Indian law scholar Robert A. Williams, Jr. Please see the press release for additional information.
Jill Doerfler has published “Those Who Belong: Identity, Family, Blood, and Citizenship among the White Earth Anishinaabeg.”
Michigan State University Press did the honors.
This is very exciting! An important moment in the study of Anishinaabe law and modern tribal membership.
Here. An excerpt:
WHEREAS, Native Americans’ right of tribal citizenship is being increasingly divested or restricted without equal protection at law or due process of law, or any effective remedy for the violation of such rights, most commonly through a tribal process known as “disenrollment.”
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Native American Bar Association hereby denounces any divestment or restriction of the American indigenous right of tribal citizenship, without equal protection at law or due process of law or an effective remedy for the violation of such rights.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Native American Bar Association hereby declares that it is immoral and unethical for any lawyer to advocate for or contribute to the divestment or restriction of the American indigenous right of tribal citizenship, without equal protection at law or due process of law or an effective remedy for the violation of such rights.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Allen v. Smith:
031.1 – Memorandum Disposition(83952089_1)
Excerpt:
This relief sought by the Appellants clearly operates against the Tribe. The
requested relief would prevent the Tribe from disenrolling the Appellants and
compel it to reinstate their membership and tribal benefits. Even the request for
compensatory and punitive damages (to be paid by the Appellees, not the Tribe)
would interfere with the Tribe’s public administration, because the monetary
damages are predicated on this court’s determination that the disenrollment of the Appellants was improper. Thus, we conclude that Appellants’ suit should be
construed as a suit against the Tribe itself.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
Here is a news article noting that Judge Doucet ruled from the bench.
An excerpt:
In a hearing Monday afternoon, Feb. 23, Nooksack Tribal Court Judge pro tem Randy Doucet held with the court’s previous rulings: Until tribal council has final word from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, they may not disenroll anyone, said lawyers for the affected members. A reporter was not allowed in the courtroom as only five people for each side were admitted.
Briefs:
2-10-15 Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion To Enforce Injuction Orders
2-10-15 Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition To Defendants Notice of Compliance
2-20-15 Reply Re Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Enforce Injunction Orders
Here are the materials:
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.