Here:
tribal membership
Update in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar — Updated 9/27/13
The court has issued an opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar (D. D.C.):
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
Nooksack COA Stays Enrollments
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
Seattle Times Coverage of Nooksack Disenrollments
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.
Oklahoma Federal Court Transfers Cherokee Freedmen Suit to D.C. District Court
Update on Nooksack Disenrollments — Restart on Disenrollment Process
News coverage on the impact of the disenrollments on school-age children here.
Materials in Roberts v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
Roberts v. Kelly Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Roberts v. Kelly Declaration of Gabriel S. Galanda In Support of TRO Motion wExhibits
Roberts v. Kelly Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Raquel Montoya Lewis
Roberts v. Kelly Order Denying Emergency Temporary Order Hearing
Roberts v. Kelly Order Denying Motion To Disqualify Hon. Raquel Montoya-Lewis
Materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):
Nooksack COA Stays Disenrollment Proceedings Pending Appeal
And the materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Ct. App.):
Emergency Motion for Stay of Tribal Court Judgment
Order Granting Appellate Review and Staying Proceedings
And a new suit in tribal court, with a sitting council member as lead plaintiff, Roberts v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Ct.):
Update in Nooksack Disenrollment Matter — Second Amended Complaint Dismissed
Here are additional materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
Kelly Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Nooksack Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Kelly Defendants’ Reply on Motion to Dismiss
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint 8-6-2013
An excerpt:
As Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn wrote recently, “in the exercise of sovereignty and self-governance, tribes have the right, like other governments, to make good decisions, bad decisions, and decisions with which others may not agree.” Aguayo, page 1. The Tribal Council members named in this Complaint hold an obligation to act in the best interests of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. Membership and enrollment decisions impact individual lives in the deepest possible ways and those decisions cannot be taken lightly. This Court recognizes the serious implications of this case and its decision on this motion and all the others that have preceded it. It is the solemn obligation of this Court to follow the law of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and it is the obligation of the Tribal Council to do the same.
Tenth Circuit Rejects Tribal Membership Claim by Alleged Choctaw Freedman Descendant
Here is the opinion in Greene v. Impson.
An excerpt:
The question in this appeal is whether officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) violated Charles Greene’s constitutional rights by failing to provide him an application form to allow descendants of Choctaw Indian Freedman to apply for federal recognition as an Indian.
Briefs:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.