North Carolina COA Affirms Denial of Unemployment Benefits Based on Removal of Eastern Band Cherokee Board for Cause

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Bird v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Alcoholic Beverage Control (N.C. Ct. App.):

20-612-1

New Mexico SCT Issues Opinion on Property Law involving Tort Claim Arising on Navajoland

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Morris v. Giant Four Corners Inc.

Prior post here.

Tara Houska and Winona LaDuke Sue Sheriff over Pipeline Protest Blockade

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Houska v. County of Hubbard (Minn. Dist. Ct.):

Complaint

Federal Circuit Affirms ICE Detention Contract Award to Company Owned by Alaska Native Corp.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Asset Protection & Security v. United States:

Federal Circuit Opinion

Oklahoma Sues Interior over Mining Regulatory Jurisdiction on the Creek Reservation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in State of Oklahoma v. Dept. of the Interior (W.D. Okla.):

1 complaint.pdfDownload

NYTs: “Lost Lives, Lost Culture: The Forgotten History of Indigenous Boarding Schools”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Affirms Conviction of Cherokee Freedmen Descendant

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Parker v. State of Oklahoma.

Briefs:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief not available

Reply

State Brief after Remand

Parker Brief after Remand

Eighth Circuit Affirms Attorney Fee Award in Spirit Lake Nation Voting Rights Matter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Spirit Lake Nation v. Jaeger.

Briefs:

State Brief

Tribe Brief

Reply

Active Efforts Case from South Dakota Supreme Court [ICWA]

Kate Fort
inrechDownload

South Dakota is sending us into the weekend with a positive attitude with this decision. In a shocking development [not shocking] it turns out that if an agency “ceased providing any efforts toward reunification after the December 2019 hearing. This means that from December 2019 to September 2020 no efforts were made by DSS to provide Mother remedial services or rehabilitative programs and no efforts were made to reunite C.H. with Mother” then, “[t]he circuit court’s finding of fact to the contrary—that DSS ‘has been providing active efforts to this family since October 2, 2018; including in-home services to prevent placement, and ongoing services to allow safe return of the child to no avail’—is not supported by the record. To the extent this finding suggests that DSS’s efforts were ongoing up to the point of the dispositional hearing, it is clearly erroneous.”

Unusually, I didn’t add any of the italics. That’s all the South Dakota Supreme Court. 

Also, anyone else get excited when a Court starts a paragraph like this: “Because this error [termination of parental rights] requires a remand, we take this opportunity to address additional errors that occurred below to prevent their reoccurrence.”?  _insert eating popcorn emoji_

So, in addition to not appointing the child an attorney despite state law requiring it, the Court also says “Second, although not raised as an issue on appeal, there are glaring defects involving ICWA mandates in the underlying proceeding that we cannot ignore.” The QEW testimony did not satisfy the evidentiary burden, and the court found that termination was not the least restrictive alternative given the child’s best interests. 

Mom did a ton of work on her own in this case despite and in spite of the state’s inaction. The Court’s recognition of this is a welcome change from most child welfare decisions.