Turtle Talk

Nooksack Federal Status Report: BIA Questions 126 Special Election Ballots

January 23, 2018Sarah M Donnelly

Here are the materials in the matter of Rabang et al v. Kelly et al, 17-cv-00088 (W. Wash.):

Link: Case archive

Menominee Tribes Sues EPA/Army Corps over Back 40 Mine

January 23, 2018January 23, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Menominee Indian Tribe v. EPA (E.D. Wis.):

Complaint

Comments Open for Arizona ICWA Practitioner Pro Hac Vice Rule

January 22, 2018January 24, 2018Kate Fort3 Comments

UPDATED POST HERE.

The Arizona tribal-state judicial forum has submitted a proposed rule change to allow out of state ICWA practitioners to enter into cases without having to associate with local counsel or pay a fee. This proposed rule has a few more requirements than other similar state rules or proposals.

For example, can an Arizona practitioner tell us what this is or looks like in practice:

“(j) Completion of Course on Arizona Law. Before being admitted to the practice of law in Arizona, Arizona uniform bar examination applicants, applicants for admission by transfer of uniform bar examination score, and applicants for admission upon motion must complete a course on Arizona law, the content and delivery of which shall be approved by the Supreme Court.”

Rule 34(j)

The proposed rule (Rule 38 (2)(C)(iv)) requires the completion of this course before being able to use the pro hac vice exception in an ICWA case. The standard pro hac vice admission rule does not include this requirement (Rule 39), but it is required of those looking to be admitted to the state bar (Rule 34). It would be useful to know if this course is something like a formal semester long class (and therefore renders the rule change less useful for the immediacy of an ICWA/child dependency preceding), or is an afternoon course available online, for example.

Comments must be made by May 21, and you must register with the Arizona courts to submit them online. The proposed rule change page here. Updates on this and other state pro hac vice rules are here. If we receive any information on what the required course entails, we will do another post.

Bay Area ICWA Symposium Request for Workshop Proposals

January 22, 2018Kate Fort1 Comment

Here

Decisions in the Hualapai Nation Court of Appeals

January 22, 2018Sarah M Donnelly

Here is the opinion in the matter of Robert Bravo, Jr., v. Hualapai Tribe et al, 2017-AP-009 (Jan. 9, 2018).

Here is the opinion in the matter of Roselyn Wescogame v. Monique Alvirez et al, 2017-AP-001 (Jun. 30, 2017)

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Alaska v. Ross (ESA seal listing)

January 22, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

Cert stage materials here.

DOI Contingency Plans for Operations in the Absence of Appropriations

January 22, 2018Sarah M Donnelly

Links:

Gallegos and Fort on ICWA in the Harvard Public Health Review

January 22, 2018Kate Fort

Here.

ICWA enhances protective factors by requiring court and agency compliance in child welfare proceedings with two cutting-edge provisions: active efforts and placement preferences. Congress deliberately created a higher standard for Indian child welfare proceedings requiring state agencies to provide active efforts to AI/AN families compared to non-Indian proceedings – which require use of reasonable efforts. Active efforts are defined as “affirmative, active, thorough, and timely efforts intended primarily to maintain or reunite an Indian child with his or her family.”15, 17