Here is the opinion in United States v. Jim.
Briefs here.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Jim.
Briefs here.
Here is the opinion in Rucker v. Fasano:
An excerpt:
No love is lost between romance novelists Kelly Rucker and Donna Fasano, who each wrote a tale of a wealthy teenage girl who falls in love with a boy of Native American heritage and becomes pregnant, before they are cruelly parted. To the reader’s relief, however, in each book the lovers are reunited years later, and they rekindle their fiery romance while their child explores his indigenous heritage with his father’s guidance. The characters’ happy endings, however, did not extend to the authors, who each claim to have conceived the story first. Rucker sued Fasano and her publishers for copyright infringement. In this appeal challenging the district court’s entry of summary judgment for the defendants, Rucker contends that disputes of material fact exist regarding Fasano’s access to Rucker’s story and the similarities between the two works. We affirm the judgment.
Story is HERE.
The Administrating is reconsidering the burdens of the Obama Administration’s Final Rule to collect data on American Indian/Alaska Native children in foster care through the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). Comments are due June 13. Previous posts explaining this call for comments are here and here and here.
If you are interested in reviewing model comments for tribes stating the data elements should remain intact, please email Delia Sharpe (California Tribal Families Coalition) at delia.sharpe@caltribalfamilies.org or me at fort@law.msu.edu
We will both be at the California ICWA conference today and tomorrow.
Here is the complaint in Klamath Tribes v. United States Bureau of Reclamation (N.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 18-02 (W.D. Wash.), aka Swinomish Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe:
Alexander Tallchief Skibine has published “The Supreme Court’s Last 30 Years of Federal Indian Law: Looking or Equilibrium or Supremacy?” In the Columbia Journal of Race and the Law.
Here is the abstract:
For 187 years, Indian nations status in the United States has not been fully developed or consistently approached within the law. They are viewed as Domestic Dependent Nations located within the geographical boundaries of the United States. Although Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged that Indian nations had a certain amount of sovereignty, the exact extent of such sovereignty as well as the place of tribes within the federal system has remained ill- defined. This Article examines what has been the role of the Supreme Court in integrating Indian nations as the third Sovereign within our federalist system. The Article accomplishes this task by examining the Court’s Indian law record in the last 30 years. The comprehensive survey of Indian law decisions indicates that while the tribal win-loss record at the Supreme Court is improving, the Court has had difficulties upholding the federal policy of respecting tribal sovereignty and encouraging tribal self-government.
After categorizing the cases between victories and losses, the Article divides the cases into categories for analytical purposes. The Second half of the Article focuses on the interaction between the Court and Congress concerning the incorporation of tribes as the third sovereign within the federalist system, and ends by arguing that through its disproportionate use of federal common law in its Indian law decisions, the Court has not attempted to reach a consensus with Congress about the place of Indian nations within our federalism.
Job vacancies are posted on Fridays. Any posts received prior to 12pm EST on Friday will appear in that Friday’s announcements. If you would like to submit a post for an Indian law or leadership job, please send a PDF job announcement and a brief description of job to indigenous@law.msu.edu.
Office of Indian Education
Program Manager, Washington D.C. This position serves as the Director, Office of Indian Education (OIE), Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). The OIE administers the Indian Education Program, Title VI, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act. The office executes program requirements and provides technical assistance for supporting local education agencies, Indian tribes and organizations, post-secondary institutions and other entities in meeting the unique educational and culturally relevant academic needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Formula grants are provided to school districts and tribal schools for the purpose of meeting the unique educational needs of Indian students. In addition, discretionary grants are awarded to support tribal education agency planning and development, demonstration projects serving Indian children, professional development for American Indian/Alaska Native teachers and administrators, and Native American language projects. OIE also supports national research activities. Please see the website for more information. Applications close on June 22, 2018.
Department of Justice
Assistant United States Attorney, Rapid City, S.D. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Dakota is seeking an experienced attoreny to fill one Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) position in the Criminal Division of its Rapid City office. AUSAs in the Criminal Divsion advise federal law enforcement agents on criminal investigations, present criminal cases to the grand jury, perpare and argue a broad range of motions, and try criminal cases before the United States District Court. Candidates should be capable of handling a variety of significant and complex criminal prosecutions, including Major Crimes Act violations involving murder, child sex abuse, rape; white collar and economic crime; narcotics and immigration. Responsibilities will increase and assignments will become more complex as your training and experience progress. Please visit the website for more information. Applications close on June 8, 2018.
Department of the Interior
Regional Solicitor-Pacific Southwest, Sacramento, C.A. The Regional Solicitor represents the Solicitor, Secretary or other Departmental officials in meetings, negotiations and conferences with Governors and key officials of state and local governments, Members of Congress and their staffs, State and Federal Judges, distinguished private attorneys, and high officials of other Federal agencies and the Department. Please visit the website for more information. Applications close on June 25, 2018.
Tohono O’odham Nation
Summer Legal Intern, Sells, A.Z. The Office of Attorney General (OAG) is hiring two (2) Interns, for an exciting eight (8) week Summer Internship that starts on June 18, 2018 and continues through August 10, 2018. The Office of Attorney General represents the interests of the Tohono O’odham Nation in tribal, state, and federal venues. Attorneys and staff in the office enjoy a diverse practice and challenging jurisdictional issues while protecting the sovereignty of the Nation. The OAG is committed to investing in the next generation of Native leaders. An internship with the OAG offers a unique opportunity for young Tohono O’odham students with an interest in tribal legal affairs, to help the Nation with legislative efforts, legal advocacy, research and analysis, and policy development from within the Nation’s top legal agency. Duties will vary, depending on the nature of the issues being addressed by the OAG and the interests and experience each student brings to the position. Legal Interns will have an opportunity to attend legislative committee hearings, attend meetings of attorneys and departments that work on government matters related to the Nation’s priorities; research and analyze important issues; assist attorneys and staff; and perform additional duties to support the work of the OAG. Please see the announcement for more information. Applications close on June 11, 2018.
Last week’s postings: May 25, 2018.
By Venus Prince & Kristalyn Kinsel, here.
The Enbridge Line 5 Pipeline has stirred controversy in Michigan for most of the past decade. This pipeline carries Canadian oil products from Superior, Wisconsin to southern Ontario via Michigan.
A five-mile span of the pipeline runs along the lake-bed beneath the Straits of Mackinac, from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to the Lower Peninsula. If When this pipeline ruptures, it can release up to one million gallons of oil into the heart of the Great Lakes – the largest source of freshwater on the planet.
A recent public opinion poll shows that a majority of Michigan citizens want the Line 5 Pipeline shut down entirely; and, nearly two-thirds of northern Michigan residents want the Line 5 Pipeline shut down.
The Bay Mills Indian Community, along with every other federally recognized tribe in Michigan, wants the Line 5 Pipeline shut down and removed from the Great Lakes. An oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac would destroy the drinking water source for many of our communities, cause lasting damage to our environment and public health, and irreparably damage the fishing rights our tribe reserved in the 1836 Treaty of Washington.
The concern about the safety of this pipeline is not hypothetical: in 2010, a separate pipeline owned & operated by Enbridge broke open, and spilled more than 800,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River system in southern Michigan. It was the largest on-shore oil spill in the history of the United States. Earlier this year, a boat dropped an anchor in the Straits of Mackinac, damaging the Line 5 Pipeline itself and causing a chemical spill from an adjacent electrical transmission line.
The State of Michigan has responded to the public scrutiny of the Line 5 Pipeline by studying the situation. In November 2017, the State of Michigan signed an agreement with Enbridge to allow the Line 5 Pipeline to continue to operate beneath the Straits of Mackinac under certain restrictions (for the time being). The State is also continuing to study some alternatives to the existing pipeline; including whether the Line 5 Pipeline should be moved into a tunnel beneath the Straits.
Michigan’s tribes, and the public, have focused on engaging the State of Michigan in its review process.
While we have all been engaged on the State’s review process, it appears that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has been working with Enbridge to ensure that it is able to continue to operate the Line 5 Pipeline for the foreseeable future.
The timeline of events can get a little confusing, but I will set it out here as clearly as possible:
Over the past several years, Enbridge has been working to make structural changes to the Line 5 Pipeline a little bit at a time. This work has included replacing and installing new anchor supports. Enbridge’s work has been exempted from scrutiny under the National Environmental Policy Act, because each action has been relatively minor.
The National Environmental Policy Act, and related federal regulations are intended to prohibit “segmentation” – breaking a large environmental impact into very small pieces, in order to avoid environmental review.
Earlier this year, Enbridge filed a request with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for permission to install 48 new anchor supports on its Line 5 Pipeline. In a change from its previous practice, the Army Corps of Engineers agreed to consult with Michigan’s treaty tribes over this large-scale construction work on the Pipeline. The Army Corps went even further, and announced that it would actually require Enbridge to undergo the review process under the National Environmental Policy Act.
This was a large step, and a recognition by the Army Corps of Engineers that Enbridge was going far beyond small repairs and maintenance on the Line 5 Pipeline. It appears that the Army Corps of Engineers recognized what has been apparent for some time – Enbridge is effectively trying to construct a new pipeline beneath the Straits of Mackinac.
This is where the EPA comes in.
On May 3, 2018, the EPA issued a letter to several tribal leaders in Michigan (including myself) informing us that they were proposing an amendment to the 2016 settlement agreement with Enbridge that would require allow Enbridge to install new anchor supports on the Line 5 Pipeline beneath the Straits of Mackinac. The EPA informed the tribes that, if we wished to comment on changes to the settlement agreement, we would have to meet EPA officials within 10 days to do so.
The Tribes were not provided with copies of the proposed changes to that agreement. Nearly a month later, we still haven’t seen the proposed changes (we’ve asked).
Here is the consequence of the EPA’s secret negotiations with Enbridge: If the EPA and Enbridge change their settlement agreement to allow Enbridge to install dozens of new anchor supports on the Line 5 Pipeline, the Federal Court will approve the agreement and enter it as a Court Order. Federal court orders have the force of law, and federal agencies have no discretion on whether to comply with the law. This means that federal agencies would have no discretion to deny Enbridge’s request to change the Line 5 Pipeline. When a federal agency doesn’t have discretion to make a decision, it is often exempted from conducting environmental review.
The ultimate conclusion would be that Enbridge could effectively be allowed to construct a new oil pipeline beneath the Straits of Mackinac without any public scrutiny or environmental review process. And, our Great Lakes and tribal treaty rights will be put at greater risk without any meaningful chance to provide input to our Trustee – the United States Federal Government.
You must be logged in to post a comment.