NYTs: “Vast Indigenous Land Claims in Canada Encompass Parliament Hill”

Here.

CNN: “The forgotten minority in police shootings”

Here.

An excerpt:

Native Americans are killed in police encounters at a higher rate than any other racial or ethnic group, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet rarely do these deaths gain the national spotlight.

Press Release and Coverage Regarding Texas v. Zinke (ICWA Challenge)

California Tribal Families Coalition, News Release Tribal Coalition Urges Attorneys General to Protect Tribal Children

A coalition of California tribes and leaders today urged state attorneys general across 18 states and U.S. territories to stand with tribes in support of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) as it faces an outrageous legal challenge that seeks to unwind decades of critical legal protections for tribal children and families.

The letter sent on November 4, 2017 by the Sacramento-based California Tribal Families Coalition to the Conference of Western Attorneys General comes on the heels of an Oct. 25th federal lawsuit filed by the State of Texas and two foster care parents challenging the constitutionality of the ICWA.

California Daily Journal, Critics Distort Indian Child Welfare Law.

Law 360, New Indian Child Welfare Act Challenges On The Horizon

The Texas v. Zinke documents are here.

 

(I have seen and am choosing not to post the recent National Review op-ed by Tim Sandefur.)

 

Friday Job Announcements

Job vacancies are posted on Friday. Some announcements might still appear throughout the week. If you would like your Indian law job posted on Turtle Talk, please email indigenous@law.msu.edu.

Ho-Chunk Nation

Tribal Prosecutor (originally posted 9/8/17), Black River Falls, W.I. The position hours are Monday-Friday 8 AM-4:30 PM. Pay depends on qualifications. Interested applicants should submit an application, resume, and transcripts if they are within 2-5 years of graduating law school. Applicants may visit the Ho-Chunk nation website to apply.

DNA-People’s Legal Services

Attorney vacancies, various locations in A.Z. and N.M. (some originally posted 9/8/17)

Snoqualmie Indian Tribe

Staff Attorney. Provides legal advice, representation, and services regarding a broad range of matters arising in the operation of the Snoqualmie Tribal Government and its various departments, subject to the direction and oversight of the In-House Tribal Attorney. This is an exempt position that reports to the In-House Tribal Attorney. Closes Saturday, December 2, 2017.

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe

Public Defender(RFP), Kingston, W.A. Seeking proposals from qualified candidates to provide Public Defender services in criminal matters within the jurisdiction of the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribal Community Court. The Public Defender shall assist individuals understand the criminal charges filed, possible outcomes of those charges, the procedures the court is required to follow and to represent defendants throughout the process. The Public Defender must be licensed to practice law in Washington State or eligible as a Rule 9 and under the direction of a supervising attorney. Proposals due by 4:30 PM PT on Tuesday, December 5, 2017.

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

Prosecuting Attorney, Lower Brule, S.D. Represent the Tribe in prosecution of adults committing criminal acts within tribal jurisdiction, including fish and wildlife offenses.

Bora Laskin Faculty of Law at Lakehead University

(3) Faculty Positions, Indigenous and Aboriginal Law, Northern Land Use Law, Thunder Bay, O.N. Candidates will be appointed as Full, Associate or Assistant Professors, depending on qualifications, teaching, and research experience. These appointments will commence in the summer of 2018 and offer excellent opportunities to join Ontario’s newest law school and contribute to its unique focus on the legal issues of Northern Ontario.

Pascua Yaqui Tribe

Deputy Prosecutor, Tuscon, A.Z. Provide professional legal services of considerable difficulty in criminal and juvenile prosecution, some child-welfare (custodial) litigation and occasionally may assist the Chief Prosecutor with managing the Prosecutor Office.

Columbia Riverkeeper

Staff Attorney, Hood River, O.R. Responsible for working with Riverkeeper’s legal team and other staff to develop and execute Riverkeeper’s legal and policy work, including representing Riverkeeper in litigation and administrative processes. The Staff Attorney work plan will focus on deepening Riverkeeper’s relationship and solidarity work with Columbia River tribes and tribal organizations. Application deadline is Monday, December 4, 2017.

National Indian Gaming Commission

Summer 2018 Interns, Washington D.C. NIGC’s internships are highly competitive. Interns are selected on the basis of their overall applications. Due to the nature of NIGC’s practice, experience or demonstrated interest in Indian law or a background in Indian affairs or gaming is highly desirable. Deadline is Friday, December 1, 2017.

Other jobs posted this week:

Contractual Evaluator(RFP), Grand Traverse Bands of Ottawa and Chippewa (11/6/17)

Previous Friday Job Announcements11/3/17

United States Files Cert Opposition in Great Plains Lending v. CFPB

Here:

US Cert Opp Brief

Cert petition here.

Cert Stage Briefs in Herrera v. Wyoming

2017-10-05 Herrera Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians’ 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States,” thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family.

Additional briefs:

17-532 Amici Brief Indian Law Professors

Crow Tribe Brief

Scholars Brief

Wyoming opposition to Herrera petition

Cert Stage Reply

 

Alaska SCT Affirms Attorney Fees Saga Involving Alaska Native Corporation

Here is the opinion in Merdes & Merdes, P.C. v. Leisnoi, Inc.

An excerpt:

An attorney represented a Native corporation in litigation nearly three decades ago. The corporation disputed the attorney’s claim for fees, and in 1995, after the attorney’s death, the superior court entered judgment on an arbitration award of nearly $800,000 to the attorney’s law firm, then represented by the attorney’s son. The corporation  paid eight installments on the judgment but eventually stopped paying, citing financial difficulties. The law firm sought a writ of execution for the unpaid balance, and the writ was granted. The corporation appealed but under threat of the writ paid $643,760 while the appeal was pending. In a 2013 opinion we held the writ invalid and required the firm to repay the $643,760.

The corporation was never repaid. The original law firm moved its assets to a new firm and sought a stay of execution, averring that the original firm now lacked the funds necessary for repayment. The corporation sued the original firm, the successor firm, and the son for breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, conspiracy to fraudulently convey assets, violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA), unjust enrichment, and punitive damages. The firm counterclaimed, seeking recovery in quantum meruit for attorney’s fees it claimed were still owing for its original representation of the corporation. 

The superior court granted summary judgment for the corporation on the law firm’s quantum meruit claim and, following trial, found that the son and both law firms fraudulently conveyed assets and were liable for treble damages under the UTPA. The son and the law firms appeal. They argue that the superior court erred in these ways: (1) holding that the quantum meruit claim was barred by res judicata; (2) holding the defendants liable for fraudulent conveyance;(3) awarding damages under the UTPA; and (4) making mistakes in the form of judgment and award of costs. But seeing no error or abuse of discretion in the superior court’s decision of most of these issues, we affirm its judgment, with one exception. We remand for reconsideration of whether all three defendants are liable for prejudgment interest from the same date.

National Indian Law Library Bulletin (11/9/2017)

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 11/9/17.

News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Land & Water section, we feature an article about the Trump administration delaying the roll-out of a controversial trust land rule.

U.S. Federal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2017.html
Mitchell v. Tulalip Tribes of Washington (Tribal Taxation – Real Estate)
Redding Rancheria v. Hargan (Health Insurance – Tribally-funded Program)
Ute Indian Tribe v. Lawrence (Jurisdiction; Breach of Contract)

State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.html
Rocks Off Inc. v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Tribal Sovereign Immunity; Jurisdiction)
Coeur D’Alene Tribe v. Johnson (Tribal Court Judgments – Full Faith and Credit)

U.S. Regulatory Bulletin   
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2017.html
The Administration for Native Americans publishes rules relating to funding areas.

U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/115_uslegislation.html
The following bills were added:
H.R.4208: Wildland Fires Act of 2017 (See Sec. 3 Definitions: (5) Indian Tribe)

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2017.html
We feature these articles:
Native Hawaiians wage an ongoing battle to organize into a sovereign nation.
“To further justice in the greater Native American community”: Ethical responsibilities of a tribal attorney in disenrollment disputes.
Hope for Indian tribes in the U.S. Supreme Court?: Menominee, Nebraska v. Parker, Bryant, Dollar General.

Tenth Circuit Issues Slightly Modified Opinion in Murphy v. Royal, Denies En Banc Petition

Here is the order with the corrected opinion, and an opinion concurring in the denial of en banc review from Judge Tymkovich:

Order Denying En Banc Petition

En banc petition stage materials here.

Panel materials here.

Split Utah SCT Affirms Tribal Immunity, Adopts Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine

Here is the opinion in Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe.

UPDATE (11/10/17) Briefs:

Appellant’s Brief

Appellant’s Reply Brief

Appellee’s Brief-LaRose

Appellee’s Brief-Newfield

Appellee’s Brief-Ute Indian Tribe

Joinder in Brief

Response to Supplemental Authority-Appellee 1

Response to Supplemental Authority-Appellee 2

Supplemental Authority-Appellant

An excerpt:

The oil and gas industry is a major economic force in the Uintah Basin. This industry relies, to some extent, on access to the Uintah and Ouray Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe. The plaintiffs allege that, through its ability to restrict the industry’s access to tribal lands, the tribe has held hostage the economy of the non-Indian population.

Ryan Harvey, a plaintiff and part owner of the two corporations that are the other plaintiffs in this case, alleges that tribal officials from the Ute Tribe attempted to extort him by threatening to shut down his businesses if he did not acquiesce to their demands, despite the fact that his businesses do not operate directly on tribal land. After his refusal to make certain payments, the tribal officials sent a letter to the oil and gas companies operating on tribal land informing them that they would be subject to sanctions if they used any of Harvey’s businesses. The tribal official’s letter dried up a large portion of Harvey’s business, and Harvey brought claims against the tribe, the tribal officials, various companies owned by the tribal officials, oil and gas companies, and other private companies he alleges are complicit in this extortionate behavior. Most of the defendants filed motions to dismiss on various grounds and the district court dismissed Harvey’s claims against all of the defendants. On direct appeal, Harvey seeks to set aside the dismissals. We affirm the dismissal of the Ute Tribe under sovereign immunity and the dismissal of Newfield, LaRose Construction, and D. Ray C. Enterprises for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But we vacate the dismissal of the remaining defendants and remand for further proceedings consistent with the tribal exhaustion doctrine.

If anyone has the briefs in this fascinating case, please send them along.