Additional materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
tribal membership
Update in Nooksack Membership Dispute
News coverage here. Previous post on the recent tribal court litigation. And an update on tribal court filings:
Second Declaration of Gabriel S. Galanda
And a federal complaint alleging FOIA violations by the Bureau of Indian Affairs — St. Germain v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Wash.):
St Germain v Interior Complaint
Tribal Court Denies Injunction in Nooksack Disenrollee Challenge
Here are the materials available in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendants Response Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for T
Ninth Circuit Reverses BIA Decision Favoring Cahto Disenrollees
Here is the opinion in Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria v. Dutschke.
The court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed the district court’s judgment affirming the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs’ decision in favor of federal defendants in an action brought by the Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria, seeking to set aside the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ decision to direct the Tribe to place the names of certain disenrolled individuals back on its membership rolls.
The panel held that the Tribe’s governing documents did not provide for an appeal to the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Tribe’s disenrollment action.
Briefs are here.
Update in Pala Band Disenrollment Dispute
Bethany Berger on Race, Descent, and Tribal Membership
Bethany Berger has published “Race, Descent, and Tribal Membership” (PDF) in the California Law Review Circuit. Here is the description:
Connecticut School of Law Professor Bethany R. Berger looks at the relationship between descent-based tribal citizenship requirements and race or racism. She argues that tribal citizenship laws that require Indian or tribal descent are generally neither the product nor the source of racism in federal Indian law and policy, and instead are moral, legal, and consistent with federal and international norms.
Perhaps as Many as Three Ninth Circuit Indian Criminal Cases Uncertain as Feds Ponder En Banc Petition in U.S. v. Zepeda
Today, the Ninth Circuit withdrew an opinion affirming a conviction in United States v. Alvirez. The Alvirez materials are here. The Zepeda materials are here. The federal government has until April 18 to file an en banc petition. A third decision that may be implicated as well is United States v. PMB (materials here).
The issue in Zepeda is here:
The panel held that a Certificate of Enrollment in an Indian tribe, entered into evidence through the parties’ stipulation, is insufficient evidence for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is an Indian for purposes of § 1153, where the government offers no evidence that the defendant’s bloodline is derived from a federally recognized tribe.
This American Life Segment on Tribal Disenrollments
Here.
Robinson Rancheria Disenrollees Bring Housing Contract Breach Suit
Here is the complaint in Harrison v. Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians (N.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
1. This action is brought by Alan and Christina Harrison, Robert Quitiquit, Karen Ramos, Inez Sands, and Reuben Want (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs are disenrolled members of the Robinson Rancheria (“Defendant” or “Tribe”).
2. Plaintiffs seek relief for Defendant’s: 1) violation of their rights to due process, and 2) breach of contract.3. Plaintiffs are parties to a housing program designed, funded and supervised by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).4. Plaintiffs entered in Mutual Housing Occupancy Agreements (“MHOA”) whereby an Indian Housing Authority would administer a home lease with an option to buy. Initially, HUD contracted with the Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority (NCIHA”), a non-Robinson Rancheria entity.5. Defendant, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, assumed the rights and responsibilities of the Indian Housing Authority and the MHOAs with Plaintiffs.6. Defendant breached the MHOAs repeatedly since assuming the contractual responsibility to administer the agreements in compliance with its terms, which include applicable HUD regulations.7. Defendants then initiated a multi-year plan to unlawfully evict Plaintiffs in contravention of the MHOA terms, which employ landlord tenant law under federal, state or local law.8. Defendants denied Plaintiffs’ due process as required by the Robinson Rancheria Tribal Court and initiated a federal case asking the court to rally federal marshals to enforce the unlawful eviction issued by the corrupt tribal court. When the federal court insisted upon reviewing the MHOAs and sending the parties to mediation, the Defendant immediately withdrew their complaint.9. Plaintiffs have lost their homes, seen their possessions thrown into large garbage bins and had their pets killed and discarded.
10. Now virtually homeless and having received no assistance from HUD or the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Congress, the Plaintiffs herein file this action.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.