Here are the materials in Block v. Tule River Tribal Council (E.D. Cal.):
California Federal Court Dismisses ADA Suit against Tule River Tribal Council
North Dakota SCT Reverses Decision to Grant Full Faith and Credit to Tribal Court Child Custody Order
Here are the materials in Baker v. Erickson:
Hinton and Giles on Native Reflections on Dawnland
Michael-Corey F. Hinton and Erick J. Giles have published “Eli-Tpitahatomek Tpaskuwakonol Waponahkik (How We, Native People, Reflect on the Law in the Dawnland)” in the Maine Law Review.
The abstract:
Multiple nations within the Wabanaki Confederacy, including the Maliseet Nation, Mi’kmaq Nation, Passamaquoddy Tribe, and Penobscot Nation, were signatories to the July 19, 1776 Treaty of Watertown, which was the first ever treaty entered into by the United States of America following the Declaration of Independence. Following the Treaty of Watertown, Wabanaki warriors served directly under General George Washington and made critical contributions in support of the Americans’ Revolutionary War. Such contributions were made based on the Americans’ promise that the Wabanaki Nations’ lands, natural resources, and traditional ways of life would be forever protected by the fledgling United States. Unfortunately for the Wabanaki Nations, their Revolutionary War-era promises were largely disregarded as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and then the State of Maine systematically oppressed their indigenous inhabitants by ignoring an emerging body of federal law, based on the Doctrine of Discovery, which was intended to protect those very indigenous people. This Article delves into this complex history by exploring the Doctrine of Discovery, historical dealings between the Wabanaki and the Americans, and the events and court cases leading up to the enactment of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), which resolved Wabanaki land claims against the State of Maine for the illegal taking of tribal lands. This Article then analyzes the legislative history and text of the MICSA and juxtaposes this record with federal common law interpreting the rights of federally recognized Tribal nations. Finally, this Article argues that federal common law interpreting the rights of Tribal nations should be relied upon when interpreting the scope of specific Wabanaki rights that were never ceded or relinquished in treaties or in the MICSA.
Michigan Public Service Commission Requests More Information re: Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel
Wisconsin COA Rejects Challenge to Constitutionality of PL280
Here is the unpublished opinion in State of Wisconsin v. House:
Briefs here.
Public Law 280 is the classic example of what SCOTUS would strike down as violating the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment. It is a mandate to states (six of them, including Wisconsin) to assume criminal jurisdiction over Indian country and it’s basically unfounded (more or less like most other aspects of Indian country criminal jurisdiction). I guess since the mandatory PL280 states consent to this federal commandeering of their legislative process, it’s okay? Or since the states retain prosecutorial discretion in individual cases? Like a lot of crap the Supreme Court has been shoving down our collective throats for the last few decades, anti-commandeering law is just stupid with two Os (thank you Knives Out for that one).
New Student Scholarship on the Involuntary Sterilization of Native Women
Genesis M. Agosto has published “Involuntary Sterilization of Native American Women in the United States: A Legal Approach” in the Nebraska Law Review.
Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Video in Spokane Tribe v. Sulgrove/Dawn Mining
Wyoming Federal District Court Orders Exhaustion
The District Court of Wyoming dismissed a claim against the Eastern Shoshone Tribe and First Nation Healthcare, requiring exhaustion of tribal court remedies. Here is the Order:
And here are the tribal briefs:
Washington Federal Court Orders Tribal Court Exhaustion in Sauk-Suiattle Dam Suit
Here are the materials in City of Seattle v. Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court (W.D. Wash.):
Prior post here.
UCLA Castro-Huerta Event Tomorrow
| Castro-Huerta v. Oklahoma and the Attack on Tribal Sovereignty: Where Do We Go From Here? Wednesday, July 6, 202210:00 am (PT)via ZoomRegister: HERE The Supreme Court upended two hundred years of settled law regarding criminal jurisdiction in Indian country last week in Castro-Huerta v. Oklahoma. In an opinion stemming from the McGirt case, the astonishing decision asserted that there is a presumption of state criminal jurisdiction that must be preempted in Indian country, undermining tribal sovereignty and threatening safety and security for Indian people. Join us for this webinar as we hear from the nation’s leading legal practitioners and scholars about how this case came to be and what we might expect in the wake of its holding. |
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.