Here:
| The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 1/10/19.
U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin (contact us if you need help finding a copy of an article)
Federal Courts Bulletin
State Courts Bulletin
Tribal Courts Bulletin U.S. Legislation Bulletin
The following were added:
Regulatory Bulletin |
“The federal government’s voluntary refusal to pay for its
own agency’s legal representation—despite ample resources to do so—does not constitute good cause for delaying this case.”
UPDATE (Background materials):
Registration is still open for the Pre-Law Advisor Training Conference. Visit the event page for more information about registration, travel reimbursements, and the agenda.
Up to 30 lodging and travel reimbursements (up to $800) are available for Tribal Education Departments and Tribal Colleges and Universities.
See below for Day 1 conference details.
Here is the opinion in Davilla v. Enable Midstream Partners.
Briefs:
By Susan Harness, here.
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Should this Court reconsider Chevron?
2. Does the National Labor Relations Act apply to Indian tribes?
3. Does the employee-to-employee solicitation rule in Republic Aviation empower employees to solicit customers in business “guest areas” like restrooms and restaurants?
From SCOTUSBlog, here.
Here are the materials in Silva v. Farrish (E.D. N.Y.):
54-3 county defendants motion to dismiss
56-3 state defendants motion to dismiss
Prior post here.
UPDATE:
Here.
The State removed non-member children from their tribal member mother, and opposed the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s request for intervention. While intervention is one of right under ICWA, because these children are non-member children, the Court found that ICWA did not apply. In addition, the Court denied the Tribe’s request for permissive intervention in a cursory paragraph. The Court based much of its interpretation and decision on the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, making it fairly specific to tribes in Maine. Regardless, the reasoning is frustrating, especially for a permissive intervention, which is apparently allowed “when a ‘[nonparty’s] claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common’ and intervention will not ‘unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.’” M.R. Civ. P. 24(b).
The dissent, pointing out that “In the matter before us, for the safety of the children, the District Court (Calais, D. Mitchell, J.) rejected the request to place the children in a kinship placement with their maternal grandmother. Instead, it authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to seek a foster placement for the children off the reservation and with caregivers who are not related to the children and are not members of the Passamaquoddy Tribe”, therefore “[w]ith the prospect of the children being removed from their Passamaquoddy relatives and the reservation community, the Passamaquoddy Tribe sought to intervene as a matter of right or, alternatively, with the court’s permission.” The dissent also acknowledges the Tribe’s assertion that”their participation in decisions related to the placement and resources available to the children are matters of importance to the court in addressing the needs of the children, whose mother is a member of the Passamaquoddy Tribe. The Tribe’s role, distinct from the role of family members, is important in informing the court of options regarding tribal resources and connections to tribal culture.”
(You had to know I’d end a series of ICWA posts on the case I found the most frustrating.)
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.