DiGrazia and Juliano on the Native Women’s Wage Gap

Danielle DiGrazia & Ann Juliano have published “Addressing the Gender Wage Gap for Native American Women” in the University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class.

An excerpt:

Native American women experience one of the largest wage gaps. Failure to remedy the wage gap for Native American women could lead to catastrophic consequences for generations of Native people. As it stands, the wage gap could amount to a financial loss of over $1.1 million over a 40-year career for a Native American woman starting her career today. This loss would disproportionately impact Native families over time, due to the prominent financial role played by women in Native households. Specifically, 64 percent of Native American mothers are the breadwinners for their families, meaning their families rely heavily on their income. Further, “[n]early one in four Native . . . households . . . are headed by women, and 30 percent of those households live below the poverty level.” Without equal pay, Native American women will continue to struggle to pay for “basic family necessities like rent, groceries, and school supplies” and to “invest in savings, higher education, or property.” However, if the wage gap were eliminated, the average Native American woman would be able to afford “[m]ore than 34 months of food; more than 29 more months of child care; their entire student loan debt in 16 months; almost 15 months of mortgage and utilities payments; or more than 17 additional months of premiums for employer-based health insurance.” The lack of sufficient funds today could also have ripple effects for future generations–for example, Native American women may struggle to put their children through school, then those children may have a more difficult time getting higher-paying jobs, and the cycle of economic disenfranchisement will continue.

United Nations CERD Letter to United States re: San Carlos Apache Tribe’s “allegations of religious freedoms violations by the United States”

Here:

Prior post here.

D.C. Circuit Rejects Kialegee Tribal Town Appeal

Here is the order in Kialegee Tribal Town v. Dept. of the Interior:

Briefs here.

California Appellate Court Holds Tribal Health Org is Immune from State Agency Proceedings

Here is the unpublished opinion in United Indian Health Services Inc./Tribal First v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board:

Blast from the Past: Tom Smithson Letter Describing KBIC Tribal Leader Fred Dakota’s Arrest for Exercising Treaty Rights in 1970

Singel Talk to Greater Lansing United Nations Association on May 20, 2025 @ 6:30

RSVP here. Zoom Info:

Meeting ID: 884 9472 0042
Passcode: 696746

“Our featured speaker, Wenona Singel, Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center and Associate Professor of Law at MSU College of Law, will explore the role of Indigenous communities in global sustainability efforts.”

Judge Tim Connors on “Rights, Relationships, Responsibilities”

In the Detroit Legal News, here.

An excerpt:

Over 30 years ago in Michigan, then Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Cavanagh began a relationship with our Tribal Courts. His initial words were prophetic to our neighbors: “We know we have more to learn from you than you do from us.” And so, it began. We have only scratched the surface of what we can learn. We can learn because there is a need, perhaps a necessity, that we open spaces and places for incorporating other world views and create procedures that nurture values that address areas of conflict in our communities.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Tribal Court Jurisdiction Cases

Here is today’s order list.

The denied petitions are Lexington Ins. Co. v. Suquamish Tribe and Lexington Ins. Co. v. Mueller.

Washington Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Enviro Challenge to Jamestown S’Klallam Oyster Farm

Here are the materials in Protect the Peninsula’s Future v. Haaland (W.D. Wash.):

22 Amended Complaint

44 Motion to Dismiss

56 Federal Response

57 Plaintiffs Response

60 Reply

65 DCT Order

Maverick Gaming LLP v. United States Cert Petition

Here:

Questions presented:

Whether Rule 19 requires dismissal of APA suits challenging federal agency action whenever a nonparty who benefited from that action asserts sovereign immunity.

Lower court materials here.