Here is the complaint in Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States (D.D.C.):
Columbia Law School Event: “Faith & Native Communities: Fighting for Freedom of — and from — Religion” [Feb. 24, Noon]
Register here.
Native America Calling: The Native political issues to watch (Today!)
Here.
The description:
One year on from the start of Deb Haaland’s historic term as America’s first Indigenous Interior Secretary, Native political watchers give their insights into the major issues likely to make waves in 2022. Experts have their eyes on the future of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the jurisdiction questions unfolding in Oklahoma, rising Native political leaders and the back-and-forth over protecting important land.
Guests:
Matthew Fletcher (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians) – law professor at Michigan State University’s college of law and author of the “Turtle Talk” blog
Dr. Laura Harjo (Muscogee Creek Nation) – associate professor in Native American studies at OU and an affiliated faculty in the University of Oklahoma’s regional and city planning program
Kandi White (Mandan/Hidatsa/Arikara) – Native energy & climate campaign coordinator for the Indigenous Environmental Network
Edgar Blatchford (Inupiaq and Yupik) – associate professor of Alaska Native studies at the University of Alaska Anchorage and former chairman of the board
Mississippi Federal Court Declines to Disqualify AUSA Who Once Worked in Choctaw Tribal Court and Stood for Criminal Defendant at Tribal Arraignment
Here are the materials in United States v. Anderson (S.D. Miss.):
Saginaw Chippewa Disenrollees Win Small Victory against Interior
Here are the materials in Cavazos v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
18-2 Saginaw Chippewa Motion to Intervene
21 Cavazos Motion for Summary Judgment
26 Saginaw Chippewa Cross Motion for Summary
29 Federal Cross Motion for Summary
40-1 Cavazos Proposed Surreply
An excerpt:
This administrative law case centers on a U.S. Department of the Interior’s (“Interior”) decision (“AS-IA Decision”), after an informal adjudication, to decline to intervene in tribal disenrollment proceedings by the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan (“Tribe”). Plaintiffs are former members of the Tribe who have since been disenrolled by Tribal leadership. Plaintiffs charge that a federal statute particular to the Tribe, the Judgment Funds Act, PL 99-346, 100 Stat. 674 (1986) (“JFA”), required Interior to intervene in and put a stop to Tribal disenrollment proceedings. In their only claim before the Court, Plaintiffs argue that Interior’s inaction was arbitrary and/or capricious within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500 et seq. (“APA”). As a remedy, Plaintiffs seek not just a remand back to the agency, but an order from this Court mandating Interior’s intervention to reverse the Tribe’s disenrollment proceedings.
In support thereof, Plaintiffs focus primarily on statutory provisions in the JFA governing (1) antidiscrimination against tribal members enrolled after the JFA’s enactment and (2) Interior’s supervision of the JFA. Ultimately, the Court agrees with Interior that the plain meaning of the JFA: (1) does not classify disenrollment as discrimination and (2) grants Interior broad discretion to intervene in Tribal disputes related to the JFA. However, the Court holds that Interior incorrectly read the JFA to bar discrimination only against enrolled members of the Tribe. Because the JFA also bars the Tribe from discriminating against disenrolled members in access to benefits and services funded by the JFA, the Court shall remand the matter to Interior to reconsider whether it should exercise its discretionary authority to intervene in the alleged inequitable provision of such benefits and services.
Prior post here.
SCOTUS Holds Brackeen and Oklahoma’s McGirt Petitions, Other Petitions Denied
The petitions in Haggerty, Stand Up, GRE Six Nations, and Tanner were all denied (see prior post).
The court also denied three McGirt-related petitions from Oklahoma prisoners:
Parish Petition/Amicus/BIO/Reply
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Menominee Indian Tribe v. Lexington Insurance Company
Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Brings Rights of Nature Claims against City of Seattle in Tribal Court over Skagit River Dams
Here is the complaint in Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle (Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court):
Fletcher, Fort, and Singel: “Defending the Indian Child Welfare Act”
From November 2021:
Lani Guinier Walks On
NYTs, here.
Professor Guinier came to the 2021 Michigan State Law Review symposium on Wenona Singel’s paper, “Indian Tribes and Human Rights Accountability.”
This one hurts a lot. Singel’s tribute on FB is worth a read.
.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.