Oklahoma Criminal Appellate Court Materials in City of Tulsa v. O’Brien

Here:

Cayuga Nation Sues NY State Lottery

Here is the complaint in Cayuga Nation v. New York State Gaming Commission (N.D. N.Y.):

Ninth Circuit Affirms MCA Domestic Violence Conviction Where Victim Was Unavailable to Testify Due to Defendant’s Actions

Here is the opinion in United States v. Blackshire.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Government Answer Brief

Reply

This is old.

Arizona Federal Court Declines to Enjoin Power Line

Here are the materials in Tohono O’Odham Nation v. Department of the Interior (D. Ariz.):

16 Motion for Injunction

27 SunZia Response

30 Federal Response

43 Reply

56 DCt Order

Prior post here.

North Dakota Federal Court Dismisses Wrongful Death Suit against BIA Cops for Killing Innocent Tribal Citizen

Here are the materials in Martin v. Gorneau (D.N.D.):

1 Complaint

59 US Motion to Dismiss

66 Individual Defendants Motion to Dismiss

71 State Defendants Motion to Dismiss

76 Response

78 Individual Defendants Reply

79 State Reply

80 US Reply

89 Magistrate Report

90 Objection

91 Individual Defendants Response

92 US Response

93 State Reply

95 DCT Order

MJRL/UM NALSA Talk Today

Today, Katherine Johnson and Jalen Rose (of MJLR) and Caleb Hawpetoss (UM NALSA) convened a panel discussion about two Indian law articles recently published by the Journal. I brought donuts.

Alexis Studler (+Fletcher obnoxiously inserting self)
Alexandra Fay (more MF, too, still in the way)
Kaighn Smith (+MF yet again)

Wisconsin Federal Court Allows Race Discrimination Claim against Bank to Proceed on behalf of Native American Church Practitioners

Here are the materials so far in Mashkikii Boodawaaning (Medicine Fireplace) Inc. v. Chippewa Valley Agency Ltd. (W.D. Wis.):

Tribal Nations Amicus Brief in Montana Environmental Case

Here is the brief in Held v. State of Montana:

Ezra Rosser on Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

Ezra Rosser has published “Progress and the Taking of Indigenous Land” in the Ohio State Law Journal.

Here is the abstract and some images supplied by Ezra:

The taking of Indigenous land in furtherance of other societal goals is so ubiquitous and so fundamental to the American project that sometimes acts of dispossession are not even recognized as such. This Article argues that the generally accepted understanding of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, a key case of the American takings law canon, is wrong because it overlooks Native Hawaiian claims to the land taken. Hawai‘i’s Land Reform Act allowed tenants a right to purchase land over the objections of the owner of the underlying property and in Midkiff the U.S. Supreme Court said that states had the right to use their eminent domain authority in such a way. The common understanding of the case is that it is a progressive victory, an example of how government can fight back against inequality and the power of large landowners. But beneath the surface, this Article argues, the case is really about dispossession. By showing how land reform predictably worked to transfer Indigenous land to upper class, relatively wealthy tenants, the Article situates Midkiff within a long history of taking Native land in order to accomplish progressive ends. By seeing Midkiff for what it is—a judicially authorized taking of Indigenous land—the significance of the case within the Property and Indian Law cannons can be more fully appreciated. Indigenous peoples are often forced to pay—in the form of diminishment of their property rights—for progressive victories, with their losses swept under the rug by courts and scholars alike. The Midkiff decision is part of a pattern of treating the property rights of Indigenous peoples as impediments to progress.

Michigan Journal of Race & Law: Last Lunch of the Semester!

Correct room is JH 0220