Here are the materials in Wichtman v. Martorello (W.D. Mich.):
Koi Nation v. U.S. Dept. of Interior [Restored Lands Exception]
The Conversation: “Historical lawsuit affirms Indigenous laws on par with Canada’s”
Here, by Prof. Darcy Lindberg.
Merits and Amicus Briefs Filed in Brackeen et al v. Zinke et al. Yesterday
Multiple parties and amici filed strong briefs in the Brackeen v. Zinke case in the Fifth Circuit yesterday. Twenty-one state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of the law, as did 325 tribal nations and 57 tribal organizations. 30 child welfare organizations also signed on to the Casey Family Programs “gold standard” brief. Law professors from more than 20 law schools signed on to the three law professor amicus briefs.
Appellee states and individual plaintiffs will file theirs by February 6. Oral arguments are expected the week of March 11.
Merits
Amicus Briefs
Constitutional Law Professors Amicus Brief
Casey Family Programs and Thirty Child Welfare Organizations
325 Tribal Governments and 57 Tribal Organizations Amicus Brief
NCJFCJ Releases Enhanced Juvenile Justice Guidelines
Unpublished Nebraska Court of Appeals Case on Active Efforts (ICWA).
Here.
We rarely post unpublished ICWA cases because otherwise that’s all we would do. However, in this case involving an analysis of active efforts, the court found that:
Efforts made in this case included facilitating supervised visits, providing family support hours, drug testing, offering parenting classes to Nathaniel, placing Aviyanah in a NICWA-compliant foster home, and taking steps to enroll Aviyanah in the Rosebud Sioux tribe. Additionally, Nathaniel was provided transportation to visitations and during his job search.
Emphasis added.
This is not an active effort. This is the minimum requirement of 25 U.S.C. 1915 (placement preferences).
Miccosukee Per Cap Taxation Cert Petitions
Here is the petition in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States:
Question presented:
The 2014 Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act states that, for income tax purposes, “[g]ross income does not include the value of any Indian general welfare benefit.”
The question presented is whether contrary to that plain command, gross income includes “Indian general welfare benefits” when those benefits are derived from gaming revenue pursuant to the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Here is the petition in Jim v. United States:
Questions presented:
Whether treaties with Indian tribes must be construed consistent with that tribe’s present-sense understanding of the treaty.
Whether the Miccosukee Tribe’s long-standing method of compensation for use of Tribal member lands and distributing revenue from land to its members can be considered a “mere formalism” to avoid inclusion and taxation as income to the members when the Tribe’s chosen method of compensation is soundly in line with federal law and policy.
Whether the Assistant Secretary of the Interior through its designated representative can interpret, waive, modify or exempt payments made to tribal members from inclusion as income.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE:
McNeal v. Navajo Nation Cert Petition
Here:
Question presented:
Whether the Tenth Circuit panel violated the current jurisprudence of this Court and the Congressional policy underlying IGRA by precluding the Nation from exercising its sovereign authority to permit a patron’s tort claim against the Nation and its gaming facility to be brought in state court without express congressional permission.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE (3/14/19):
Federal Court Dismisses Contract Claim against Alaska Tribe
Here are the materials in Alaska Logistics LLC v. Newtok Village Council (D. Alaska):
25 answer to counterclaims and counterclaims to counterclaims
Article Out of Colorado on Keeping Kids in Foster Care in the Same School
While this article doesn’t talk about Native children populations, this is an aspect of foster care I always teach, and often law students find it surprising that children are moved out of their school district (and related sports teams, academic teams, IEPs, etc. etc.) when they are removed from their home. Federal law (not ICWA) requires kiddos who go into foster care to stay in the same school system, and yet:
When children are taken from their parents and placed in foster care, or when they change foster homes, caseworkers are required to convene a “best-interest determination” to decide whether the child should switch schools or stay put. The meeting includes teachers and school staff, parents, and in some cases, the child.
According to a state data sample of children who changed schools, that meeting happened before the school switch just 11 percent of the time in Colorado last year. More often than not, the meeting happened after the student had already transferred or didn’t happen at all.
Emphasis added. And this is in a state where the legislature ALLOCATED FUNDING for this federal requirement. To bring it into the ICWA world, while required by a separate federal law, I might still consider it active efforts to keep a kiddo in the same school district. It’s also just confounding to me the number of things required by both state and federal law that just simply do not happen in these cases (just in case you wondered what has Kate Fort cranky today. Also, this report which should be a totally different post about parents and active efforts and incarceration).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.