Arizona Court of Appeals on Notice [ICWA]
1 CA-SA 22-0076 Tohono v. Hon Fridlund SQ – Opinion
Under Arizona law, tribes shall receive notice in voluntary proceedings:
Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-535(A) provides that after a petition for termination of the parent-child relationship has been filed, “notice of the initial hearing and a copy of the petition shall be given to . . . the tribe of any Indian child as defined by [ICWA].” The statute does not limit the notice requirement to involuntary proceedings.
***
Because neither A.R.S. § 8-535 nor the Arizona Rules of Juvenile Procedure limit an Indian tribe’s right to notice or intervention solely to involuntary parental terminations, those tribal rights extend to voluntary termination proceedings. Since the Nation was not provided notice of the initial termination proceeding, nor was it allowed to intervene, we vacate the parental termination order, grant the Nation’s motion to intervene, and remand to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
Thank you to everyone who sent this to me within approximately 20 minutes of it being released.
D.C. Circuit Rejects Federal Effort to Dismiss Tanana Chiefs’ Contract Breach Claim Against I.H.S.
Here are the materials in Tanana Chiefs Conference v. Beccera (D.D.C.):
Grant Christensen on Using Consent to Expand Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction
Grand Christensen has posted “Using Consent to Expand Tribal Court Criminal Jurisdiction,” forthcoming in the California Law Review, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
In June of 2022 the Supreme Court reversed two-hundred years of precedent and held in a 5-4 opinion that states have concurrent criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. In conducting the preemption analysis Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion reasoned that while states have a strong interest in prosecuting crimes in Indian country in order to keep the community safe, tribes had functionally no interest because they generally lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The court then reasoned that the lack of a tribal interest could not preempt the state interest. This article suggests, despite the general prohibition on tribes asserting criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians that was discovered by the Supreme Court in 1978’s Oliphant opinion, tribes can assert criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who consent to the jurisdiction in tribal court. The argument extends to both affirmative and implied consent and draws its authority from both pre-Oliphant scholarship and precedent as well as from recent development by the Court, Congress, and dicta from the Ninth Circuit. If tribes are able to regularly assert some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, then when lower courts apply Castro-Huerta in the future there will be a strong tribal interest to preempt state criminal jurisdiction in Indian country.
Highly recommended.
Lac Du Flambeau Ojibwe Cert Petition in Bankruptcy Act/Sovereign Immunity Case
Here is the petition in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin:
Question presented:
Whether the Bankruptcy Code expresses unequivocally Congress’s intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
South Dakota Federal Court Dismisses Lower Brule Tribal School Overspending Case
Here are the materials in Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Haaland (D.S.D.):
American Constitution Society 2022 Supreme Court Preview — Thursday, 9/15 @ 12:30 EST [featuring Singel]
Register here.
Description:
Join ACS for our Annual Supreme Court Preview, part of our observation of this year’s Constitution Day. After the seismic decisions handed down last Term, all eyes will be on the Court this fall to see what may come next. The Preview will feature a diverse group of constitutional and legal experts offering their insights into the upcoming Supreme Court Term that begins on October 3rd.
Welcome Remarks
Russ Feingold, ACS President
Speakers
Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times (moderator)
Deborah Archer, President, ACLU; Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Faculty Director of the Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law, NYU School of Law
Jonathan Diaz, Senior Legal Counsel, Campaign Legal Center
Kent Greenfield, Professor and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar, Boston College Law School
Wenona Singel, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar; and Clinical Professor of Law, Penn State Law
American Constitution Society 2022 Supreme Court Preview [featuring Singel]
Register here.
Description:
Join ACS for our Annual Supreme Court Preview, part of our observation of this year’s Constitution Day. After the seismic decisions handed down last Term, all eyes will be on the Court this fall to see what may come next. The Preview will feature a diverse group of constitutional and legal experts offering their insights into the upcoming Supreme Court Term that begins on October 3rd.
Welcome Remarks
Russ Feingold, ACS President
Speakers
Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times (moderator)
Deborah Archer, President, ACLU; Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Faculty Director of the Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law, NYU School of Law
Jonathan Diaz, Senior Legal Counsel, Campaign Legal Center
Kent Greenfield, Professor and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar, Boston College Law School
Wenona Singel, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar; and Clinical Professor of Law, Penn State Law
Split Oklahoma SCT Rules against Cherokee Nation’s Claims for COVID Business Losses Coverage
Here are (many of) the materials in Cherokee Nation v. Lexington Insurance Co.:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.