Here are the materials in Cayuga Nation v. Campbell (N.Y. A.D.):
Briefs in Short Term Loan/Sovereign Immunity Matter involving Lac Du Flambeau Ojibwe President
Here are the materials so far in Jones v. Wildcat (E.D. Pa.):
2019.06.07-docket-1-complaint-with-exhibits.pdf
2019.08.30-docket-9-wildcat-mtd.pdf
Danielle Delaney on Environmental Law, Indigenous Identity, and #NoDAPL
Danielle Delaney has published “Under Coyote’s Mask: Environmental Law, Indigenous Identity, and #NoDAPL” in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law.
The abstract:
This Article studies the relationship between the three main lawsuits filed by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DaPL) and the mass protests launched from the Sacred Stone and Oceti Sakowin protest camps. The use of environmental law as the primary legal mechanism to challenge the construction of the pipeline distorted the indigenous demand for justice as U.S. federal law is incapable of seeing the full depth of the indigenous worldview supporting their challenge. Indigenous activists constantly re-centered the direct actions and protests within indigenous culture to remind non-indigenous activists and the wider media audience that the protests were an indigenous protest, rather than a purely environmental protest, a distinction that was obscured as the litigation progressed. The NoDAPL protests, the litigation to prevent the completion and later operation of the pipeline, and the social movement that the protests engendered, were an explosive expression of indigenous resistance—resistance to systems that silence and ignore indigenous voices while attempting to extract resources from their lands and communities. As a case study, the protests demonstrate how the use of litigation, while often critical to achieving the goals of political protest, distorts the expression of politics not already recognized within the legal discourse.
Improper Removal Case out of Washington Court of Appeals [ICWA]
Today I received a call that went something approximately like this:
Caller: “So with [25 U.S.C.] 1920 …”
Me: “Right, 1922, go on.”
Caller: “Um, ok, so with 1920 . . .”
Me: “I think you mean 1922?”
Caller: “I think I mean 1920?”
Reader, she absolutely meant 25 U.S.C. 1920, and also had the patience to hang in there with me and tell me about the following case:
Here is an opinion from the Washington Court of Appeals decided in January and published in April that I completely missed and is also the only and first case I’ve encountered in five years of reading (nearly) every ICWA case where the court used 25 U.S.C. 1920:
¶30 Both ICWA and WICWA have provisions for the appropriate remedy when an Indian child is improperly removed by the State from his or her home or the State improperly maintains custody. Under ICWA,
[w]here any petitioner in an Indian child custody proceeding before a State court has improperly removed the child from custody of the parent or Indian custodian or has improperly retained custody after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of custody, the court shall decline jurisdiction over such petition and shall forthwith return the child to his parent or Indian custodian unless returning the child to his parent or custodian would subject the child to a substantial and immediate danger or threat of such danger.
25 U.S.C. § 1920. Similarly, under WICWA,
[i]f a petitioner in a child custody proceeding under this chapter has improperly removed the child from the custody of the parent or Indian custodian or has improperly retained custody after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of custody, the court shall decline jurisdiction over the petition and shall immediately return the child to the child’s parent or Indian custodian unless returning the child to the parent or Indian custodian would subject the child to substantial and immediate danger or threat of such danger.RCW 13.38.160.
¶31 Here, the Department has improperly maintained A.L.C’s placement in out-of-home care because the Department has failed to provide active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. The appropriate remedy is the remedy prescribed by statute. Thus, we remand to the juvenile court to either immediately return A.L.C. or make the statutorily required finding that returning A.L.C. will subject her to substantial and immediate danger or threat of such danger.
Emphasis added.
Domestic Violence and Indian Child Welfare Training
The training is November 1st, 2019 in Livingston, TX and will focus on Domestic Violence and its effects on Indian Children and Indian Child Welfare. Save the Date flyer here. You can register here.
Federal Court Grants Default Judgment in Federal Action to Enforce Section 184 Mortgage but Requires Gov’t to Answer Tribe’s Affirmative Defenses
Here are the materials in United States v. Estate of Gallegos (D.S.D.):
6-oglala-sioux-tribe-answer.pdf
Ninth Circuit Decides Protect Our Communities v. LaCounte [Wind Energy and Eagle Protection]
Vox: “6 Native leaders on what it would look like if the US kept its promises”
By Rory Taylor, here.
New Indian Law Scholarship on SSRN
Here:
Law and Science Series No. 1: The Contemporary Methodology for Claiming Reserved Instream Flow Water Rights to Support Aquatic Habitat
The Historical Evolution of the Methodology for Quantifying Federal Reserved Instream Water Rights for American Indian Tribes
Traditional Ecological Rulemaking
Lobbying as a Strategy for Tribal Resilience
Judge Murphy’s Indian Law Legacy
Learning from Tribal Innovations: Lessons in Climate Change Adaptation
Tribal Data Governance and Informational Privacy: Constructing ‘Indigenous Data Sovereignty’
Self-Determination, the Trust Doctrine, and Congressional Appropriations: Promise and Pitfalls of Federal Disentanglement from Indian Health Care
Seventh Circuit Briefs in Oneida v. Hobart
Here are the briefs in Oneida Nation v. Village of Hobart:
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.