Here. It’s like a podcast thing-y.
Scholars’ Circle Interviews: Bob Miller, Liz Reese, and Fletcher on Castro-Huerta
Here. It’s like a podcast thing-y.
Alex Skibine Publishes “Textualism and the Indian Canons of Statutory Construction” . . .
. . . in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (Go Blue). PDF
Here is the abstract:
When interpreting statutes enacted for the benefit or regulation of Indians or construing treaties signed with Indian nations, courts are supposed to apply any of five specific canons of construction relating to Indian Affairs. Through examining the modern line of Supreme Court cases involving statutory or treaty interpretation relating to Indian nations, this Article demonstrates that the Court has generally been faithful in applying canons relating to treaty interpretation or abrogation. The Court has also respected the canon requiring unequivocal expression of congressional intent before finding an abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity. However, there are two other canons that the Court almost never applies. One, the tribal sovereignty canon, requires clear intent to interfere with tribal sovereign rights; the other, the Indian ambiguity canon, requires statutes to be construed liberally with ambiguities resolved to the benefit of Indians. After reviewing the possible reasons why textualist jurists might be opposed to the use of substantive canons, this Article makes two arguments to remedy any reluctance to using the tribal sovereignty and Indian ambiguity canons. First, these canons have constitutional roots, and as such, even textualists on the Court should not be reluctant to use them. Second, the more established canon concerning abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity should also extend to statutes interfering with tribal sovereign rights. There are no normative reasons to treat abrogation of sovereign immunity differently than other statutory interference with tribal sovereignty.
Cert Petition in Big Horn County Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Big Man
Here:
Question presented:
Whether an Indian tribal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a tribally created claim as an “other means” of regulating a nonmember federally funded and federally regulated electric cooperative tasked with providing electrical service to all customers within its service territory, including tribal members on Indian reservations?
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Alabama Federal Court Dismisses Civil Claims against Defense Contractor Owned by Eastern Band Cherokee
Here are the materials in Aquate II v. Myers (N.D. Ala.):
Alaska SCT Briefs on Sovereign Immunity of Alaska Native Consortiums
Alaska Federal Court Rules in Favor of Southcentral Foundation in Dispute with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
Here is the final order in Southcentral Foundation v. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (D. Alaska):
Muscogee SCT Decision in Muscogee (Creek) National Council v. Scott
MSU Press Publishes New Work on Tribal Administration
Rebecca M. Webster and Joseph Bauerkemper have published their edited collection “Tribal Administration Handbook: A Guide for Native Nations in the United States.”
Blurb:
A direct response to the needs and ambitions articulated by tribal administrators and leaders, this handbook seeks to serve practitioners, students, researchers, and community members alike. It grew out of an ongoing collaboration among scholars and practitioners from tribal nations, universities, tribal colleges, and nonprofit organizations who are developing practical and teaching resources in the field of tribal administration and governance. Designed as a readable, accessible volume, it focuses on three key areas: tribal management, funding and delivering core services, and sovereign tribes engaging settler governments. While the chapters complement one another by presenting a coherent and unified constellation of voices that illuminates a shared terrain of practical Indigenous governance, each chapter ultimately stands alone to accommodate a variety of needs and interests with specific best practices, quick-reference executive summaries, and practitioner notes to aid lesson applications. This humble collection of remarkable voices initiates a conversation about tribal administration that will hopefully continue to grow in service to Native nations.
NCAI Amicus Brief in Merrill v. Milligan
On January 24, 2022, a unanimous three-judge court in the Milligan case blocked Alabama’s newly drawn congressional map. The Court ordered the state Legislature to draft a new congressional map that complies with the Voting Rights Act by including two districts where Black voters have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. The Supreme Court is now hearing the case.
Here is NCAI’s amicus brief in the matter.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.