trust relationship – Page 45

Lynn & Whyte: “Indigenous Peoples, Climate Change and the Government-to-Government Relationship”

September 4, 2013September 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kathy Lynn and Kyle Powys Whyte have posted “Indigenous Peoples, Climate Change and the Government-to-Government Relationship” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Climate change impacts present indigenous peoples with distinct challenges, from the loss of species needed for subsistence practices like fishing and plant gathering, to coastal erosion that may force some communities to migrate away from areas they have inhabited or used for many years. Students, activists, environmental managers, scholars and corporate and political leaders of all heritages should be aware of how indigenous peoples must address climate change impacts from global to community-level scales, and the obstacles they may encounter due to intersecting oppressions, like cultural imperialism and disempowerment. To create such awareness, there is a need for more work that describes the specific sites of interaction relevant to indigenous peoples and climate change. Sites of interaction are the local and regional places where indigenous peoples are in relationships with governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), networks and alliances. Better understanding the relationships that indigenous peoples have with these groups and institutions contributes to fostering unique and necessary indigenous approaches to address climate change that reflect their unique cultural connections to the earth. This paper focuses on one of the critical sites of interaction for indigenous peoples in the United States — the government-to-government relationship. While the government-to-government relation is not a new approach, this paper examines how it might operate in indigenous climate change adaptation contexts in the United States. We describe a set of examples of consultation and collaboration and offer seven recommendations that demonstrate the value of tribal responses to climate change.

Federal Court Rules against Intertribal NAHASDA Claims

August 30, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the updated materials in Lummi Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

44 Second Amended Complaint

45 US Motion to Dismiss

48 Lummi Response

50 US Reply

57 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

76 Lummi Motion for Partial Summary J

83 US Cross-Motion

88 Lummi Reply

95 DCT Order Granting US Motion

An excerpt:

This case arises under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 (“NAHASDA” or “the statute”), as amended, 25 U.S.C. §§ 4101–4212 (2006). Plaintiffs sue here to recover grant funds initially paid to them under the statute but later recaptured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD” or “the agency”) when HUD determined that the allocation formula on which the grants had been based had been misapplied. This action is currently before the court on the parties cross-motions for partial summary judgment. By direction of the court, the parties have fully briefed only those arguments addressing the issue of whether 25 U.S.C. § 4152(b)(1), as originally enacted, prohibited HUD from excluding the housing units referenced in the statute from the allocation formula, rendering 24 C.F.R. § 1000.318’s removal of such units contrary to the statute and therefore invalid.

The court heard oral argument on July 30, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as it relates to the alleged invalidity of 24 C.F.R. § 1000.318 is denied and defendant’s cross-motion is granted.

Prior post on this matter here.

Little River Band Ottawa Reply Brief in LRB v. NLRB

August 30, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

2013-08-20 Reply Brief (As Filed)

Spirit Lake Employee Group’s Contract Claims against Feds Dismissed

August 29, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Council for Tribal Employment Rights v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

1-Council for Tribal Employment Rights Complaint

25-US Motion to Dismiss

46-Council Response

48-Council Motion for Partial Summary J

49-US Reply

53-US Opposition

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

Council for Tribal Employment Rights (“Council”), a national intertribal nonprofit organization which represents the employment interests of certain Indian tribes, seeks $500,000 in damages for the alleged breach of two agreements which involved the Council, the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development (“the Office”), a component of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“the Bureau”), U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Spirit Lake Tribe (“Spirit Lake” or “the Tribe”), a federally recognized Indian tribe. Both agreements were executed as amendments to an existing contract between the Office and Spirit Lake. The first, Amendment 2, involved the provision of funds to support a Native Construction Careers Initiative (“NCCI”) commercial construction training program, and called upon the Council to conduct the training program. The second, Amendment 6, allocated funds to support training projects approved by the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”). The statement of work for that Amendment referenced an FHWA training program agreement which contemplated that the Council would provide training to develop certain certification programs for road construction activities.

Materials in Trinity River Flow Suit

August 26, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Lifting TRO and Denying Preliminary Injunction

Water Districts Motion

Water Districts Reply

News coverage here.

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Klamath Claims Committee v. United States

August 26, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Unpublished opinion here:

12-5130.Opinion.8-20-2013.1

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here and here.

News Coverage of Federal Government’s Intervention in Penobscot v. Maine

August 23, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, via Pechanga.

Miccosukee Sues United States, Claiming Illegal Tax Audits and Trust Breach

August 15, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Miccosukee Tribe v. United States (S.D. Fla.):

Miccosukee Complaint

Here is an excerpt:

1. The MICCOSUKEE TRIBE brings this suit to redress intentional and gross breaches of trust by the United States, by and through the Defendants, with respect to the money and property of the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People.

2. This suit involves willful, purposeful, and malicious actions by the United States, by and through the Defendants, by selectively targeting the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People for federal tax audits.

3. The procedures utilized to target the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People were improper, secret, and conflict ridden.

4. These procedures were conflict ridden and improper because they involved dealings with persons acting outside the established scope of employment with the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and whose legal interests were clearly and substantially adverse to the legal interests of the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People.

5. Although the United States, acting by and through the Defendants, clearly knew that the individuals they were dealing with were acting to the detriment of the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People, it allowed, encouraged, perpetrated, and protected them in order to improperly obtain tax assessments, penalties, and interest against the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People amounting to millions of dollars.

6. Although the United States, acting by and through the Defendants, clearly knew that some of the individuals they were dealing with were actively engaged in violation of the criminal laws of the United States while purporting to represent the interests of the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE, the United States allowed, encouraged, perpetrated, and protected these individuals in order to improperly obtain tax assessments, penalties, and interest against the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People amounting to millions of dollars.

7. These losses to the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People are permanent and of a continuing nature, as interest continues to accrue on the tax assessments instituted by the United States, acting by and through the Defendants.

8. As a direct and proximate cause of the intentional and wrongful actions, as well as the gross breach of trust by the United States, acting by and through the Defendants, the MICCOSUKEE TRIBE and its People have suffered irreparable harm by losing millions of dollars through the Defendants’ arbitrary and indiscriminate imposition of tax liabilities, penalties and interest.