Here is the complaint in Environmental Law and Policy Center v. United States Coast Guard (E.D. Mich.):
AFCARS Data Implementation Rule Delayed and Will be Revised. Again.
From the Administration for Children and Families here.
The rule is delayed until 2020 and the Administration is going to “streamline” the data elements. And then it might just be delayed again based on the “streamlining”:
The Children’s Bureau published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2018 a final rule to delay implementation of the December 2016 AFCARS final rule until October 1, 2020 (83 FR 42225). However, since we plan to revise the AFCARS data points, we will revisit this implementation date to provide a timeframe to allow title IV-E agencies time to comply with the revised AFCARS data points.
ICWA Pro Hac Vice Rule Proposal in Wisconsin
Here:
Our Pro Hac Vice page is here.
Wisconsin Proposed Pro Hac Vice Waiver for Tribal ICWA Attorneys
In the Matter of the Petition to Amend Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 10.03(4), Regarding Pro Hac Vice Admission for Nonresident Counsel Appearing in Matters Involving the Indian Child Welfare Act, Petition 18-04
Proposal to Amend WI SCR 10.03(4) to add the following:
(g) Nonresident counsel is not required to associate with an active member of the State Bar of Wisconsin and is not subject to any application or fees for pro hac vice admission if they establish to the satisfaction of the Court that:
- The nonresident counsel seeks to appear in a Wisconsin court for the limited purpose of participating in an “Indian child custody proceeding” as defined by s. 48.028(2)(d), or an “Indian juvenile custody proceeding” as defined by s. 938.028(2)(b), pursuant to the Wisconsin Indian Child Welfare Act (WICWA) s. 48.028, or a “child custody proceeding” as defined by 25 U.S.C. § 1903, pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; and
- The nonresident counsel represents an Indian Tribe pursuant to 25 USC § 1911(c), s. 48.028(3)(e), or s. 938.028(3)(e); and
- The Tribe has affirmed the child is an Indian child defined by 25 USC § 1903(4) and s. 48.02(8g) or an Indian Juvenile as defined by s. 938.02(8g).
As background: WA, MN, OR, MI, & NE all have rules/laws making pro hac vice easier for tribal attorneys in ICWA cases. AZ and CA have pending rules.
To submit a comment:
- Submitting a comment to a rules petition
A comment to a pending rule petition shall be submitted in hard copy (include one original and nine copies). The paper copies shall be mailed to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 53701.
A person submitting a comment shall e-mail an electronic copy of the comment in MS Word format MS Word to the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court at clerk@wicourts.gov and carrie.janto@wicourts.gov.
- Contents of comment
The comment shall identify the rule petition to which it relates.
III. Service of comment on petitioner
A copy of the comment shall be forwarded to the petitioner in a timely manner. See the rule petition for the name and contact information of petitioner.
https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/1804.htm
NYTs: “Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year”
Here.
CSKT 2018 Indian Child Welfare Legal Summit, September 12-13
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes’2018 Indian Child Welfare Legal Summit
The Montana Court Improvement Program, in conjuction with CSKT, would like to invite you to this interactive training designed to improve legal knowledge, skills, and practices in relation to Indian Child Welfare.
After opening with a case law update describing recent Montana opinions, federal court litigation, and note-worthy opinions from sister states, this CLE will provide a quick interactive refresher on the basics of tribal jurisdiction in child custody cases and the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
With this foundation in place, participants will explore topics like best practices in child welfare cases, domestic child sex trafficking, tribal code enhancement, and ethics as it relates to Indian child welfare cases. Participants will have the opportunity to break out into small affinity groups to discuss improving systems and practices across the state in order to better serve AI/AN children and families.
This two-day training is designed for tribal attorneys, tribal judges, parents’ attorneys, GALs, adoption attorneys, and state prosecutors. (Although caseworkers, CASAs, and other child welfare practitioners are welcome to join us, the focus of this training is to improve legal knowledge, skills, and practices.) Faculty includes local and national experts, practitioners, and scholars from across the country. An application for CLE credits will be filed.
For agenda, updates and more visit:
Ninth Circuit Rejects Tribe’s Challenge to Interior Determination in Whistleblower Case
Here is the opinion in Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy Reservation v. Dept. of Interior. A related unpublished opinion in St. Marks v. Dept. of Interior is here.
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel denied a petition for review by the Chippewa Cree Tribe challenging a decision of the U.S. Department of the Interior that ordered the Tribe to provide relief to Ken St. Marks, who was removed from the Tribe’s governing body – the Business Committee – in retaliation for his whistleblowing.
St. Marks informed the Department of the Interior that members of the Business Committee were misusing federal stimulus funds awarded to the Tribe by the Department pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Act contains robust whistleblower protections.
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
News Coverage of Line 5 Camp at Cross Village
Here is “Protesters set up camp near Line 5.“
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Diné Citizens against Ruining Our Environment v. BIA [Rule 19 Joinder; Four Corners Power Plant & Navajo Mine]
Materials in Dispute over Ownership of Lot 28 on the Lone Pine Indian Reservation
Here are the materials in Watterson v. Fritcher (E.D. Cal.):
CTFC Press Release on Dismissal of Goldwater (ICWA) Lawsuit
FINAL Release – ICWA Again Survives Challenge by Fringe Group
The California Tribal Families Coalition, a coalition of tribes and tribal leaders, this week applauded the recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss an ill-conceived challenge against the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) arising from claims in Arizona by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative fringe anti-ICWA group.
The Aug. 6 dismissal marks the end of the latest in a series of cases brought by the group against ICWA as part of a years-long, systematic and disturbing effort to undermine the 40-year-old federal statute that protects Indian children. To date, the Goldwater Institute has failed in its every attempt to upend ICWA.
Despite the encouraging dismissal, the Sacramento-based California Tribal Families Coalition (CTFC) also warned of additional, pending attacks that seek to unwind ICWA and the decades of critical legal protections it has provided against separating tribal children from their families and tribal communities.
This release is discussing the Goldwater litigation, which was the first major attempt to get ICWA declared unconstitutional. Both Navajo Nation and the Gila River Indian Community intervened in this case involving tribal children.
Since 2015, there have been nine federal lawsuits attacking ICWA directly on constitutional groups. There is on-going litigation directly attacking ICWA and tribal court jurisdiction in the Eighth Circuit and the Northern District of Texas.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.