tribal membership – Page 25

I agree with much of the majority’s analysis, particularly its conclusion that whether a tribe has been recognized by the federal government is a question of law. But I disagree with the majority’s ultimate determination that the government failed to present sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could infer that Zepeda has a blood connection to a federally recognized tribe. Under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), a rational jury could certainly infer that the reference in Zepeda’s tribal enrollment certificate to “1/4 Tohono O’Odham” is a reference to the federally recognized Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona.

Panel materials are here.

Materials on affected appeals are here.

Judge Hogan Sets Cherokee Freedmen Oral Argument for April 29, 2014

September 18, 2013September 17, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

2013-09-17 Order Granting Joint Motion for Order Setting Briefing Schedule for Summary Judgment on Core Issue

Briefing Schedule in Cherokee Freedmen Case (Now in D.C. Federal District Court)

September 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

2013-09-13 Joint Motion for Order Setting Briefing Schedule for Summary Judgment on Core Issue and Staying Case on All Other Matters

Update in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar — Updated 9/27/13

September 6, 2013September 27, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

The court has issued an opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar (D. D.C.):

DCT Order

From the order:

This matter is before the Court on Intervenor-Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 58, at 2 (Mar. 26, 2012). Intervenor-Defendant also argues that it is a required party but that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, id. at 21; for clarity the Court will construe this argument as a motion to join a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2). Because the Court agrees that Intervenor-Defendant is a required party but not that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, the motion to join a required party is GRANTED. Because the Court finds Intervenor-Defendant’s remaining arguments to be largely — but not entirely — without merit, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Materials are here.

Update — additional materials:

2013 09 20 Motion for Reconsideration

2013 09 20 Motion for Stay Pending Reconsideration

DCT Order Denying Stay

Nooksack COA Stays Enrollments

August 28, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.) and Roberts v. Kelly (Nooksack COA):

Roberts v Kelly Order on Motion for Permission to File Interloctory Appeal

Lomeli v Kelly Order Extending Stay

Roberts v Kelly Notice and Emergency Motion for Permission to Appeal Interlocutory Order And Aceptance of Appeal

Seattle Times Coverage of Nooksack Disenrollments

August 27, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Excerpt:

The federal government has been hesitant to get involved in tribal internal affairs, according to Robert Anderson, director of the Native American Law Center at the University of Washington and an enrolled member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. A group of Snoqualmie members experienced a rare legal victory in 2009 when a federal court judge overturned their banishment and disenrollment.

Disenrollment decisions are not only about membership, but also about belonging, Raquel Montoya-Lewis, chief judge of the Nooksack Tribal Court, wrote in a court decision.

“Cultural and tribal identity lay at the heart of how we know ourselves. … Belonging to a tribe gives tribal members a sense of home, of connection to a community, whether one lives there or not,” Montoya-Lewis wrote.