Siletz Consent Decree and Restoration of Hunting and Fishing Rights

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Craig Dorsay:

After 44 years, the severe restrictions imposed on the exercise of hunting and fishing rights by the Siletz Tribe have been removed, and the Tribe is now free to claim and assert treaty rights as it sees fit. The original restrictions were imposed on the Tribe by the State of Oregon, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, as the price for the State not opposing Siletz’s restoration as a federally-recognized tribe in 1977 or obtaining a modest reservation in 1980. The State attorney at the time – this was in the middle of the Northwest treaty fishing wars -made sure these restrictions were ironclad and permanent by requiring the Siletz Tribe to enter into an Agreement on the exercise of hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering rights severely restricting those rights, and then incorporating that restrictive agreement in a “friendly” federal court decree as well as the Tribe’s federal legislation restoring a modest reservation for the Tribe. (copy of 1980 Agreement and federal court decree attached).

The State strictly enforced this Agreement until Governor Kate Brown in 2016 agreed that this Agreement and arrangement was unconscionable, and cooperated with the Tribe in getting it lifted. This cooperation resulted in federal legislation in 2023 removing the applicable reference from the Tribe’s Reservation Act, and in a November 2024 Court Order vacating the original 1980 federal court decree. A copy of the legislation, the joint motion to vacate the consent decree, and the Court Order are also attached.

Materials here:

1980-04-22 Agreement – Hunting, Fishing, Trapping and Gathering.pdfDownload
1980-05-02 Final Consent Decree and Order – Burns.pdfDownload
1 – 2024-10-10 Joint Motion to VacateCM_ECF – USDC Oregon.pdfDownload
Ex. 2 -1980-05-02 Statement by Contressman Les AuCoin on Siletz Reservation Bill.pdfDownload
Ex. 3 -2023-12-26 Pub. L. No. 118-33, 118th Cong., 1st Sess. H.R. 2839.pdfDownload
5 – 2024-11-01 Order Vacating Decree & Order.pdfDownload

Navajo Sues for $25M Tribal Court Contract

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

Complaint.pdfDownload

Kekek Stark on Decolonizing Jurisdiction in Anishinaabe Tribal Courts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kekek Jason Stark has published “Gwayak Ateg Onaakonigewi Dibenjigewin: Decolonizing Jurisdiction in Anishinaabe Tribal Courts” in the Nebraska Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

It is generally understood as a matter of federal Indian law that determinations of tribal law should properly be interpreted by tribal courts. This is because tribal courts do not always adhere to the same legal philosophy as their settler colonial counterparts. Many tribal courts subscribe to traditional law, which is an “essential source” of tribal jurisprudence. Anishinaabe communities have maintained a rich body of traditional tribal law since time immemorial. However, these customary law principles are only recently being included in modern-day Anishinaabe tribal court determinations. This Article builds upon the Anishinaabe law principles articulated in recent opinions and provides an overview of Anishinaabe tribal court jurisdictional cases in analyzing the efficacy of Anishinaabe customary law. Part I provides a brief introduction. Part II provides an overview of traditional Anishinaabe governance. Part III provides an overview of federal law that has been forced upon Anishinaabe communities in an attempt to further the colonizing project of assimilation. Part IV examines the principles of Anishinaabe jurisdiction. In doing so, this Article sets out traditional Anishinaabe law principles of jurisdiction as an example of how Anishinaabe Tribal Nations can define their own interpretations of law and jurisdiction. Part V analyzes how the principles of traditional Anishinaabe law are being balanced with the principles of federal Indian law under Montana and its progeny in Anishinaabe jurisdictional cases. The final Part shows that Anishinaabe tribal courts should be proactive and utilize Anishinaabe customary law in the recognition of their sovereignty apart from the federal courts’ articulations of tribal court jurisdiction. As provided in this Article, Anishinaabe tribal courts have the opportunity to define tribal jurisdiction from a tribal perspective in their tribal court opinions. For a tribal court to properly maintain its tribal character while adapting to the Anglo system of jurisprudence, it must build the system upon tribal concepts. In doing so, Anishinaabe tribal courts can ensure that their analysis remains Anishinaabe in character furthering tribal self-government and self-determination, and that its opinions are not being colonized by federal court determinations of tribal customary principles. In this way, Anishinaabe tribal courts will be able to fully implement the principles embedded in gwayak ateg onaakonigewi dibenjigewin.

Highly recommended!

CILA Pre-Law Program for Native/Indigenous Law Students 

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Selected participants will learn the nuts and bolts of applying to law school and hear from law students, current practitioners, LSAT prep staff, university admissions and others in order to “demystify” the law school process, starting with the application and beyond. More information about CILA is available at calindianlaw.org. If you have any questions about the Pathway to Law Program, please email us directly at info@calindianlaw.org.

This program is offered at no cost (to include lodging and food) and we have limited travel scholarships available. Everyone that completes our in-person program wil

l receive a free 10-week LSAT prep course from 7Sage, valued at over $500. 

Applications are due 1/24/25. 

For more info and to apply, visit: https://forms.gle/QEftcdUxykVzVgL9A

Update in Yakama v. Toppenish [Tribal Shelter]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are pleadings so far in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. City of Toppenish (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

4 Motion for TRO

9 DCT Order Granting PI

12 City Response to 4

15 Yakama Supplemental Response

18 DCT Order Extending PI

20 City Supplemental Response to 1 

Termination-Bent Alaskans Sue NIGC Over Opinion that Trust Allotments in Alaska are Gaming-Eligible

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Holl v. Avery (D. Alaska):

7 ComplaintDownload

Ninth Circuit Affirms $134M in Restitution Fees Against CashCall (remember them?)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. CashCall Inc.

Prior post here.

Camacho, Kronk Warner, McLachlan & Kroeze on Conservation Governance, Climate Change, and Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Alejandro E. Camacho, Elizabeth Kronk Warner, Jason McLachlan & Nathan Kroeze have published “Adapting Conservation Governance Under Climate Change: Lessons from Indian Country” in the Virginia Law Review. PDF

Here is the abstract:

Anthropogenic climate change is increasingly causing disruptions to ecological communities upon which Natives have relied for millennia. These disruptions raise existential threats not only to ecosystems but to Native communities. Yet no analysis has carefully explored how climate change is affecting the governance of tribal ecological lands. This Article, by examining the current legal adaptive capacity to manage the effects of ecological change on tribal lands, closes this scholarly and policy gap.

This Article first considers interventions to date, finding them to be lacking in even assessing—let alone addressing—climate risks to tribal ecosystem governance. It then carefully explores how climate change raises distinctive risks and advantages to tribal governance as compared to federal and state approaches. Relying in part on a review of publicly available tribal plans, this Article details how tribal adaptation planning to date has fared.

Focusing on climate change and ecological adaptation, this Article delves into the substantive, procedural, and structural aspects of tribal governance. Substantively, tribal governance often tends to be considerably less wedded to conservation goals and strategies that rely on “natural” preservation, and many tribes focus less on maximizing yield in favor of more flexible objectives that may be more congruent with adaptation. Procedurally, like other authorities, many tribal governments could better integrate adaptive management and meaningful public participation into adaptation processes, yet some tribes serve as exemplars for doing so (as well as for integrating traditional ecological knowledge with Western science). Structurally, tribal ecological land governance should not only continue to tap the advantages of decentralized tribal authority but also complement it through more robust (1) federal roles in funding and information dissemination and (2) intergovernmental coordination, assuming other governments will respect tribal sovereignty. This Article concludes by identifying areas where tribal management practices might serve as valuable exemplars for adaptation governance more generally, as well as areas in which additional work would be helpful.

Petition for Rehearing in City of Tulsa v. O’Brien

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Petition for RehearingDownload

Prior post here.