Here are the materials in Skull Valley Health Care LLC v. NorStar Consultants (D. Utah):
City of Tulsa v Hooper Stay Application Materials
WaPo Article on Diversity in OSG Office and Letter to the Editor in Response
Recently the Washington Post published a long article on the issues in the Office of Solicitor General regarding their lack of diversity in hiring. This conversation is a constant one in federal Indian law circles (as in, we really do talk about this ALL THE TIME), but the article failed to mention that OSG is all up in the Indian law cases but has no Native lawyers now or ever. Today, the Post published a letter to the editor in response stating this far more eloquently:
Justice For and By Native Americans:
The July 25 front-page article “A defense of diversity fell to an office that lacks it” brought much-needed attention to the lack of diversity at the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The article failed to mention, however, the OSG’s lack of Native American lawyers. Both omissions of Native Americans — from the article and from the OSG — merit correction.
Erasures such as these are a persistent problem for Native Americans; the resulting harm is particularly acute here. The United States owes treaty-based, trust obligations to Indian tribes, and federal law governs life in Indian country to a degree matched in few other areas. Federal law determines the bounds of tribal sovereignty, the scope of treaty rights and the rules that apply to individual tribal members in spheres such as child welfare, taxation and criminal law.
In just its past five terms, the Supreme Court decided more than 10 cases involving Indian tribes. The OSG — which is charged with fulfilling the United States’ trust obligations at the Supreme Court — plays an outsize role in these cases. The United States is often a party, and even when it is not, the OSG typically participates at oral argument. Indeed, the OSG presented oral argument in every Indian law case from the past five terms. Yet despite the OSG’s central role, the OSG has never hired a Native American lawyer, per University of Michigan professor Matthew L.M. Fletcher.
As The Post article noted, many maintain that the OSG “has a special responsibility to reflect the country it serves.” That moral imperative is especially pronounced in the case of Native Americans.
Lenny Powell, Washington
Fletcher-Singel Talk Tonight in Northern Michigan
Pathways to the Bench: Diane J. Humetewa
South Dakota Federal Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Argument Premised on Federal Control of Oglala Tribal Court
Here are the materials in United States v. Kills Warrior (D.S.D.):
Federal Court Complaint Filed re: Cannabis Raid at Round Valley
Here is the complaint in Cordova v. Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office (N.D. Cal.):
Nicholas Stamates on White Collar Crime in the City of Tulsa after McGirt and Castro-Huerta
Nicholas Stamates has posted “The Aftermath of McGirt and Castro-Huerta: Problems and Possible Solutions relating to White Collar Crime in the City of Tulsa,” recently published in the Texas Tech Law Review, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
The Supreme Court ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma drastically changed the legal jurisdiction of most of the state of Oklahoma under federal law. In 2017 the 10th Circuit held in Murphy v. Royal that the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906 never disestablished the reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes and the Supreme Court would concur with that opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma which means that the Major Crimes Act and other federal and tribal laws relating to Indians now apply in Eastern Oklahoma, including the City of Tulsa, and not Oklahoma law in applicable cases. In doing so, the Supreme Court inadvertently created a white-collar crime jurisdictional nightmare but one that has many solutions that enshrine tribal sovereignty and corporate responsibility among Tulsa based businesses. These solutions include state and tribal compacts, congressional legislation and proactive measures by Tulsa corporations such as “McGirt forms” that list Indian status of involved parties under federal law in case of a crime, choice of law provisions in contracts for civil suits in Tribal Courts so that corporations know what to expect and can shape the outcome of a case and working with local law schools so that new hires are prepared for the post McGirt and Castro-Huerta landscape.
Kevin Washburn on the Biden-Harris Administration’s Expanding Work with Tribes
Kevin Washburn has posted “The March of Co-Management — The Biden-Harris Administration’s Expanding Work with Tribes” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
In response to a request from the Foundation of Natural Resources and Environmental Law for a description of the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to increase the role of tribal communities in federal land management, this essay provides a variety of ways that the Biden-Harris Administration has worked to provide a stronger relationship between the federal government and tribal governments. These efforts include historic appointments of Native Americans to significant positions, especially in the areas governing natural resources in the federal government. It also includes better processes for incorporating traditional ecological knowledge into decision making, enhancing efforts at tribal consultation, and dramatically increased appropriations for tribal governments. The essay also explains how tribes fit within broader administration priorities, such as the American the Beautiful initiative to conserve 30 percent of American land by 2030, and the Justice 40 initiative, providing 40 percent of federally-appropriated funds invested in support of the clean energy transition to communities burdened by traditional energy infrastructure.
Alexandra Fay on Criminal Jurisdiction and Federalism in Indian Country
Alexandra Fay has posted “Criminal Jurisdiction and Federalism in Indian Country” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
This Article examines criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country to describe tribal status in American federalism. In 2022, Congress and the Supreme Court altered the already byzantine scheme of criminal jurisdiction on tribal land through the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, respectively. By instating both tribal and state jurisdiction over a common class of offenders without any structure for coordinating prosecutions, VAWA and Castro-Huerta have necessitated a new kind of inter-sovereign cooperation — in other words, a federalism problem.
To understand the import of these jurisdictional shifts, the Article traces the history of tribal criminal jurisdiction from the American War of Independence to the present. The national policies and decisions that shaped this record can be characterized by both a persistent distrust of tribal justice and an enduring recognition for tribal sovereignty. Given the historic antagonism between the subordinate sovereigns, namely states’ penchant for ignoring and undermining tribal governance, tribes have good reason to be wary of concurrent jurisdiction today.
At its heart, this Article is a study of federalism. It adapts existing theories of federalism to illuminate tribal political status and suggestions federalism values (e.g. innovation, local self-determination, minority empowerment) to guide tribal sovereigns’ continued integration into American constitutionalism. Ultimately, it presents a federalism argument for tribal sovereignty.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.