Federal Court Rejects Chemehuevi Tribe Effort to Stop County Interference with Tribal Police

Here are the materials in Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon (C.D. Cal.):

57 Defendants Motion

61-1 Tribe Motion

62 Defendants Response

64 Tribe Motion

68 Defendants Reply

71 Tribe Reply

84 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Materials in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (U.S. v. Washington subproceeding 14-1)

Here:

S’Klallam Tribes Brief

Suquamish Reply

Tulalip Tribes Brief

Upper Skagit Brief

Oral argument video here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe (U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 09-1 — second go around, I think?)

Here:

Four Tribes’ Brief

Hoh Tribe Brief

Makah Brief

Makah Reply

Quinault and Quileute Brief

Six Tribes’ Brief

State Brief

State Reply

Oral argument video here.

Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation Proclamation — Possibly the Largest Reservation Proclamation (by acreage) Ever

Here is the Federal Register notice:

Federal Register Notice 2017-18854

Arizona Court of Appeals Briefs in Hopi Tribe v. City of Flagstaff

Here:

Hopi Opening Brief

Flagstaff Brief

Hopi Reply

Prior posts here.

Arizona Court of Appeals ICWA Notice Case

Here.

I always find it useful when parts of the transcript make it into the appellate court decision:

During her direct examination at trial, Mother testified as follows:

Q. You advised me earlier that you are affiliated with the Sioux tribe; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And tell us, if you will, what your affiliation is?

A. My mom is Oglala, enrolled in the Oglala Sioux tribe in South Dakota, and my dad is an enrolled member in Spirit Lake in North Dakota.

Q. Okay. And are you an enrolled member?

A. Not yet, but I can be.

Q. You’re eligible for enrollment?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know whether your daughter would be eligible [for] enrollment?

A. Yes, she would.

So of course DCS notified both the Oglala Sioux and Spirit Lake, oh wait, what was that?

DCS does not argue that Mother’s testimony was insufficient to provide notice that H.N. might be an Indian child under ICWA. Instead, DCS argues that, “by the time Mother testified about her tribal affiliation, there were no [pending] proceedings for the tribe to intervene in.” That argument, however, ignores the fact that Mother’s testimony occurred before the motion to terminate was granted. Accordingly, DCS’ argument regarding the application of ICWA to “post-termination proceedings” is inapplicable. Cf. Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Dep’t Child Safety, 242 Ariz. 277 (2017) (discussing transfer of matters under ICWA both pre- and posttermination).

¶13 DCS’ argument also does not address case law from other jurisdictions directing that “[n]otice is mandatory, regardless of how late in the proceedings a child’s possible Indian heritage is uncovered” and that the notice requirement in ICWA cannot be waived by a parent. See In re Suzanna L., 127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 860, 866 (App. 2002) (quoting In re Kahlen W., 285 Cal. Rptr. 507, 513 (App. 1991)); accord Gila River Indian Cmty., 242 Ariz. at 292 ¶ 27 (noting “courts have historically been reluctant to imply a waiver of Indian rights under ICWA”).

(emphasis added)

The appellate court remanded the case for proper notice under ICWA.

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Contributes $500,000 to Harvey relief efforts

The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, in cooperation with Naskila Gaming, is contributing $500,000 to 11 Texas counties hard hit by Hurricane Harvey and its aftermath. Half of that amount will go to Harris County, while another $250,000 is going to 10 other southeast Texas counties.

HERE.

Federal Court Dismisses Federal Recognition Bid by Group of Mdewakanton Sioux Indians 

Here is the opinion in Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of Minnesota v. Zinke (D.D.C.).

Briefs previously posted here.

NABA-DC Letter to President Trump After Charlottesville

Download(PDF): Letter

Excerpt:

We ask that you and other governmental actors take steps to prevent racist and violent events like the Unite the Right Rally from occurring in the future, while allowing for legitimate speech protected by the First Amendment. We also ask that you support the removal of celebratory markers commemorating individuals who committed violence against and impinged on the rights of marginalized populations.