Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Klickitat County (E.D. Wash.):
25 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
58 DCT Order Denying Motion for PI
Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Klickitat County (E.D. Wash.):
25 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
58 DCT Order Denying Motion for PI
Here is the brief in Aji P. v. State of Washington (Wash Ct. App.):
More details on this case here.
Aila Hoss has posted her paper “Exploring Legal Issues in Tribal Public Health Data and Surveillance” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Tribes are sovereign nations with a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Within the United States, there are 573 federally recognized Tribal nations with distinct governments, cultures, and histories. Each Tribe exercises both political sovereignty and cultural sovereignty through Tribal governance and their unique cultural teachings. As part of the exercise of this sovereignty, Tribes have the inherent authority to engage in public health activities that support the safety and welfare of their citizens. An essential component to public health practice includes the collection and surveillance of health data. Surveillance data allows for the identification of health issues as well as instances in which certain populations are being disproportionately burdened by these health issues. This data is essential to effective policy making. Law is the foundation of public health practice, including the underpinnings of public health data collection and surveillance and ensuring the privacy of such data. Much has been written on public health data and surveillance at the state and local level. Yet, Tribal law and the federal laws that define the relationships between Tribes, states, and the federal government add an additional complexity to the collection and surveillance of law for American Indian and Alaska Natives. This article explores legal issues in Tribal data and surveillance. First, this article provides a summary of Tribal public health and health care systems. Next, it outlines surveillance laws and practical challenges in Tribal surveillance. Finally, it describes some of the legal strategies used to promote effective data collection and surveillance.
Here is the order in Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. Approximately 15.49 Acres of Land in McKinley County (D.N.M.):
Here.
Here are the updated materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Arizona):
Third Amended Complaint materials
340 Utility and State Response
369 Utility and State Response
Prior posts here.
But our review involves no probing of the facts, just a pure question of law: Does a tribal court have jurisdiction under federal law to issue a civil personal protection order against a non-Indian and non-tribal member in matters arising in the Indian country of the Indian tribe? Because 18 U.S.C. § 2265(e) unambiguously grants tribal courts that power, and because tribal sovereign immunity requires us to dismiss this suit against two of the named defendants, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Spurr’s complaint.
Reply
Answer Brief
Appellant Brief
Lower court materials here.
Tribal supreme court decision here.
Update:
Here are the new materials in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C.):
418 DCT Order on Administrative Record
433-2 Standing Rock Motion for Summary Judgment
434-2 Oglala Motion for Summary Judgment
435-1 Yankton Motion for Summary Judgment
Here is the opinion in In re Application No. OP-0003:
You must be logged in to post a comment.