Job Postings 4.24.25

If you have a new announcement, please share it with us by uploading the information requested on this Google Form. If you have any questions, please email the MSU College of Law Indigenous Law & Policy Center at indigenous@law.msu.edu.

Fall 2025 Legal Externships at Earthjustice

Earthjustice , Hybrid

Under the supervision of a licensed attorney, the legal externs will be assisting Clean Energy case teams with legal research, drafting pleadings, preparing for hearings, and other assistance with tasks needed to bring cases before state public utility commissions, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and state and federal courts. 

Must be enrolled in law school as a 2L or 3L during fall 2025.

Must be eligible to receive academic credit or fulfill a graduation requirement through this externship.

Commitment of at least 15 hours per week. Full-time hours are 37.5 hours/week.

Excellent writing, research, analytical and organizational skills.

Strong work ethic, initiative, and ability to think creatively.

Ability to work collegially with others and independently.

Knowledge of environmental and administrative law is a plus. 

Legal externs are unpaid and must receive academic credit or fulfill a graduation requirement for their work with Earthjustice.

Interested candidates should submit the following materials by 5:00pm PT on Friday, May 9, 2025 via Jobvite https://earthjustice.org/about/student-opportunities

Reservation Attorney

Tulalip Tribes, Tulalip, WA

The Reservation Attorney shall provide legal counsel to the Tulalip Tribes government in all judicial and administrative forums and in the Tribes’ governmental and business relations with outside entities.  This position will focus on the area of child welfare, and will appear in Tulalip and State Courts on behalf of the Tulalip Tribes in child welfare proceedings.

Juris Doctorate from an ABA accredited law school.

One (1) year of experience practicing law or equivalent experience advocating for or providing counsel to Indian tribes or tribal communities.

Three (3) years of experience representing or working with Indian tribes.

Salary: $150,000-$185,000 DOE Open until filled. https://www.tulaliptribes-nsn.gov/Base/File/Attorney-Job-Description-20250416

NHBP Supreme Court Associate Justice

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Fulton, MI

TRIBAL COUNCIL SEEKS LETTERS OF INTEREST FROM PERSONS TO SERVE AS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ON THE NHBP TRIBAL SUPREME COURT. The Tribal Council is soliciting letters of interest from qualified individuals interested in being appointed to serve as Associate Justice on the NHBP Supreme Court. The individual appointed to this position would be appointed to a six-year term of office expiring on April 31, 2031. Letters of interest must be submitted no later than May 12, 2025 to be considered.  

NHBP Judicial Branch: The NHBP Judiciary is a Constitutional Branch of Government established under Article XI of the Band’s Constitution. The NHBP Court is a court of general jurisdiction and the Supreme Court hears appeals from the Judiciary’s Trial Court. In addition to hearing appeals, members of the Supreme Court also work with the Trial Court’s Chief Judge and other court staff in the development of Court Rules and Administrative Orders.

INTERESTED APPLICANTS SHOULD SEND A LETTER OF INTEREST AND STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS (OR RESUME) TO:  

Amy Wesaw, Sr. Staff Attorney

1485 Mno-Bmadzewen Way

Fulton, MI 49052 

Amy.Wesaw@nhbp-nsn.gov

LETTERS OF INTEREST MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN May 12, 2025

Qualifications for Appointment: In accordance with the NHBP Constitution, persons interested in being appointed to the Tribal Judiciary must agree to undergo an extensive background investigation and may be asked to appear before the Tribal Council to answer questions about his/her qualifications for the position. The qualifications of prospective appointees are determined by the Tribal Council in accordance with the qualifications for office contained in Article XI of the NHBP Constitution which include the following:

• Has attained the age of thirty (30) years;

• Is a licensed attorney in good standing;

• Not be an employee of NHBP or presently serving, or a candidate for, a seat on the elected Tribal Council; and

• Has never been convicted of a violent crime, felony or a crime of fraud.

Members of the bench are compensated for services at a competitive hourly rate.  In accordance with the NHBP Constitution, “the amount of [compensation] shall not be reduced during such person’s term of office”.  Justices are also reimbursed for reasonable expenses including travel to and from Michigan. 05/12/2025 https://nhbp-nsn.gov/careers-at-nhbp/

Associate Judge

Yavapai-Apache Nation, Camp Verde, Arizona

GENERAL PURPOSE  

The Associate Judge presides over cases before the Tribal Court and helps ensure the proper operation of Yavapai-Apache Nation Tribal Court under the supervision of the Chief Judge

ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (include but no limited to)”

• Issue warrants of arrest, bench warrants, search warrants, subpoenas, temporary restraining orders, Orders of Protection, commitments and other legal documents.

• Preside over proceedings in all cases as assigned by the Chief Judge, including: civil, criminal, domestic relations, adoption, ICWA, landlord tenant, real estate, probate and specialty court and other matters arising under the Yavapai-Apache Law & Order Code and the jurisdiction of the Court. 

• Conduct court business and facilitate the development and use of alternative and informal processes in the resolution of disputes. 

• Conducts, attends, and interacts in meetings with the Yavapai-Apache Nation personnel, other public agencies and the public. 

• Represents the Nation in a variety of local, state, county, and other meetings. 

• Other duties as assigned by the Chief Judge. 

The Minimum Qualifications for Judges of the Tribal Court are established by Ordinance adopted by the Tribal Council as authorized under the Constitution of the Yavapai-Apache Nation.  Title 3 of the Nation’s Judicial Code, Section 111, sets out the “Minimum Qualifications and Limitations of Judges of Tribal Courts.”  A copy of Section 111 is attached to this Job Description and incorporated herein.

• In addition to the Minimum Qualifications set out in Title 3, the following qualifications also apply to this Position:

o In the case of applicants who are attorneys, a Law Degree and State Bar license plus two (2) years experience as a Judicial Officer, Attorney, or Tribal Advocate (Law School Degree highly preferred for this position).

o In the case of Non-Attorney Applicants, a High School Diploma or GED plus six (6) years experience as Judicial Officer, or Tribal Advocate; or a Paralegal or Tribal Trial Advocacy Certificate plus five (5) years experience as a Judicial Officer, Lawyer or Tribal Advocate. 

• Minimum of one (1) year of practice before courts of limited jurisdiction.(Tribal Court preferred).  

• Respect their peers and their constituencies. 

• Knowledge of Tribal, Federal and State Law; regarding Tribes and familiarity with Tribal communities.  

Salary DOE Open Until Filled https://yavapai-apache.org/employment/

Program Attorney

National American Indian Court Judges Association, Boulder, CO

NAICJA seeks an experienced Program Attorney responsible for researching, designing

and implementing continuing judicial education programs. Under direction of the Executive Director the Program Attorney will: 

Manage and oversee federal grants, including supervision of Program Coordinator.

Oversee the coordination of grant and project deliverables.

Monitor and ensure grant reporting deadlines are met and grant deliverables are completed. Research, design and implement curricula for in-person and web-based trainings.

Lead manager/administrator team during all stages of course facilitation.

Handle all logistics for on-site trainings including direct contact with host site staff.

Facilitating the convening of the Annual National Tribal Judicial and Court Clerks

Conference.

Requirements

• Juris Doctorate (J.D.)

• Substantial previous experience with American Indian and Alaska Native persons,

communities and/or tribal justice systems

• Background in training and technical assistance for tribal audiences

• Experience in administering federal grants

• Demonstrated experience managing budgets and producing financial reports

• Advanced understanding of federal Indian law and tribal legal systems

• Understanding of holistic defense and traditional dispute resolution models

Salary Starting 80,000 Open until May 16, 2025 https://www.linkedin.com/hiring/jobs/4212853058/detail/

Fall 2025 Biodiversity Externship

Earthjustice, Hybrid

Under the supervision of an attorney, the legal extern will contribute legal research and writing related to new and ongoing cases for the Biodiversity Defense Program.

Requirements:

Enrolled in law school as a 2L or 3L during fall 2025. 

Must be eligible to receive academic credit or fulfill a graduation requirement through this externship. 

Interest in public interest law and social justice. 

If full-time, must commit to 37.5 hours per week. 

If part-time, must commit to at least 12 hours per week.   

Interested candidates should submit the following materials by 5:00pm PT on Friday, May 9, 2025 via Jobvite. Incomplete applications will not be considered. Applications will be reviewed beginning May 12 with offers extended no later than June 27.    https://app.jobvite.com/j?aj=oEcTvfwY&s=Turtle_Talk

Reservation Attorney

Tulalip Tribes, Tulalip, WA

Provide legal services to the Tribal government, Executive Directors, CEOs, Board of Directors, various other departments, enterprises, commissions, and committees.  Primary focus will be providing legal counsel to the tribal government in the areas of HR/Employment, Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance (TERO), Housing, and Education.

Five (5) years practicing law; three (3) years representing or working with Indian tribes. $150,000-$225,000 DOE Open Until Filled https://www.tulaliptribes-nsn.gov/Base/File/Attorney-Civil-Job-Description-20250422

D.C. Federal Court Denies Intervention in Scotts Valley Gaming Case

Here are the intervention materials in Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Burgam (D.D.C.):

12 First Amended Complaint

15 UAC Motion to Intervene

16-1 Wintun Tribes Motion to Intervene

20-1 GTL Motion to Intervene

29 Federal Opposition to Tribal Motions

30 Federal Opposition to 20

31 Scotts Valley Combined Opposition

34 GTL Reply

35 UAC Reply

36 Wintun Tribes Reply

38 DCT Order on Intervention

Prior post here.

Manuel Lewis (UMLS) on Tribal Sovereignty and the Decline of the Administrative State

Manuel Lewis has posted “The Decline of the Administrative State and its Potential Effects on Tribal Sovereignty” on the Michigan Journal of Environmental and Administrative Law’s blog.

An excerpt:

The federal government of the United States, including federal agencies, owes a trust responsibility to Tribes. The contemporary federal administrative state has given greater authority over agency decisions to the federal judiciary while simultaneously reducing government funding for various agencies’ operations. As a result, it is unclear that the federal government will continue to adhere to its trust responsibility in agency actions. Failure to account for Tribal governments in the current administrative state is a violation of the United States’ duty to Tribes and calls for greater advocacy to ensure the protection of Tribal interests—both in federal agencies and in federal courts.

This bullshit AI art is no reflection on Manny’s great work. (Look at those cheeks!)

Ninth Circuit Materials in Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. Teck Cominco Metals LTD

Oral argument (sadly no food fights):

Briefs:

CCT Opening Brief

Nez Perce Amicus Brief

Siletz Letter

Suquamish Letter

US Amicus Brief

Mining Company Answer

Canada Amicus Brief — BOO! Canada

Reply

New Student Scholarship on Anishinaabe Treaty Rights and Bad River’s Suit against Enbridge Line 5

Delaney Kelly has published ““We Stand With the Water”: Ojibwe Treaty Rights, the Walleye Wars, and the Imminent Threat of Enbridge’s Line 5” in the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law.

Here is the abstract:

Enbridge Energy’s crude oil pipeline, known as Line 5, currently poses a serious threat to the vitality of the Bad River in Wisconsin and the Great Lakes more broadly. Its construction threatens centuries old treaty rights of Ojibwe nations. Line 5 has been the subject of protest and extensive legal action over the past decade. This Note analyzes the legal claims leveraged by various Ojibwe nations against Enbridge. First, it considers the history of the Ojibwe people in the Midwest region and the treaties forged between the United States and Ojibwe leaders, which enshrined rights to hunt, fish, and gather on both reservation and ceded territory. Then, it analyzes the attempted forced removal of the Ojibwe by the federal government, despite these treaties. Next, it details early twentieth century criminalization of the exercise of the right to hunt, fish, and gather, and the legal battle to exercise those reserved rights. Then, it discusses the Walleye Wars of the late twentieth century. Finally, this Note describes how the contemporary legal battle against Enbridge’s Line 5 builds upon this legacy, arguing that the environmental threat posed by the pipeline inhibits the ability to exercise reserved treaty rights, and threatens the vitality of the land.

Ninth Circuit Decides Fuson v. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

Here is the opinion.

Briefs:

Appellant Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Ablavsky and Berger on Birthright Citizenship and Elk v. Wilkins

Gregory Ablavsky and Bethany Berger have posted “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof: The Indian Law Context,” forthcoming in the NYU Law Review Online, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  Much of the debate over the meaning of this provision in the nineteenth century, especially what it meant to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, concerned the distinctive status of Native peoples—who were largely not birthright citizens even though born within the borders of United States.  

It is unsurprising, then, that the Trump Administration and others have seized on these precedents in their attempt to unsettle black-letter law on birthright citizenship. But their arguments that this history demonstrates that jurisdiction meant something other than its ordinary meaning at the time—roughly, the power to make, decide, and enforce law—are anachronistic and wrong. They ignore the history of federal Indian law.

For most of the first century of the United States, the unique status of Native nations as quasi-foreign entities was understood to place these nations’ internal affairs beyond Congress’s legislative jurisdiction. By the 1860s, this understanding endured within federal law, but it confronted increasingly vocal challenges. The arguments over the Fourteenth Amendment, then, recapitulated this near century of debate over Native status. In crafting the citizenship clause, members of Congress largely agreed that jurisdiction meant the power to impose laws; where they heatedly disagreed was whether Native nations were, in fact, subject to that authority. Most concluded they were not, and in 1884, in Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court affirmed the conclusion that Native nations’ quasi-foreign status excluded tribal citizens from birthright citizenship. 

But the “anomalous” and “peculiar” status of Native nations, in the words of the nineteenth-century Supreme Court, means that the law governing tribal citizens cannot and should not be analogized to the position of other communities—or at least any communities who lack a quasi-foreign sovereignty and territory outside most federal and state law but within the borders of the United States. Indeed, the Court in Wong Kim Ark expressly rejected the attempt to invoke Elk v. Wilkins to deny birthright citizenship to a Chinese man born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, ruling that the decision “concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States.” The analogy has no more validity today than it did then, and the current Court should continue to reject it.

New Filings in Apache Stronghold Matter

Here:

Apache Stronghold Letter

Mining Company Letter

Federal Letter

Feds Notice to DCT

Petition is here. Opposition briefs here.

SCOTUS Denies HCI Tax Petition

Here is today’s order list.

Cert stage materials in HCI Distribution Inc. v. Hilgers are here.

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Tix v. Tix

Here:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Law Prof Amicus Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

Tribal Orgs Brief

Lower court materials here.