Here:
Question presented:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the District Court’s confirmation and enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
UPDATE:
Deb Haaland!
Why Can’t Native Americans Make Whiskey?
New York Times Op-Ed:
“Small-scale distilling is a booming business, providing much-needed jobs and revenue for state and local governments. So why are Indian tribes legally prevented from joining in?”
Op-ed is HERE.
Eleventh Circuit Rules Against Miccosukee Tribe and Sally Jim over Taxes
Here is the opinion in United States v. Jim.
Briefs here.
Seventh Circuit Decides Copyright Dispute Between Authors of Native-Themed Romance Novels
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.
Sacred Dakota peace pipe sells for $40,000 — and buyer gives it back to Minnesota tribe
Story is HERE.
AFCARS Tribal Comments Needed-June 13 Deadline
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.
Klamath Sues over Two Endangered Fish Species
Here is the complaint in Klamath Tribes v. United States Bureau of Reclamation (N.D. Cal.):
Federal Court Rejects Effort to Block Lummi Crab Fishery as Unripe
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 18-02 (W.D. Wash.), aka Swinomish Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe:
Alex Skibine on the Last 30 Years of Indian Law
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.