Here.
ACLU: “President Trump Says the Dakota Access Pipeline ‘Serves the National Interest,’ Yet It Threatens Indian Rights and the Drinking Water of 18 Million People”
Here.
Oil Pipeline Spills 53,000 Gallons on First Nation Lands
Minnesota Public Radio Show: “What criminal justice looks like in Native American communities”
From yesterday, here.
Active Efforts Case out of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
Here.
NICWA, however, adds two additional elements the State must prove before terminating parental rights in cases involving Indian children. In re Interest of Walter W., supra. First, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that active efforts have been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful. See § 43-1505(4); see also In re Interest of Walter W., supra. Second, the State must prove by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. See § 43-1505(6).
***
Although the record indicates that for the first two years this case was pending in the juvenile court, there is some question about whether the Department was doing as much as it “possibly could have been” under an active efforts standard, it is clear that for the last two years this case was pending, the Department was providing Louisa with active efforts toward achieving reunification with her children. Despite the two years of active efforts, Louisa failed to make significant or sustainable progress towards reunification. Moreover, while we recognize that during the beginning stages of the juvenile court case the Department may have failed to provide active efforts, this does not mean that the Department failed to provide any efforts. The record is clear that Louisa has been receiving services from the Department since prior to the petition being filed in this case in November 2011. Despite all of those efforts, coupled with the Department’s recent active efforts, Louisa has not made progress towards reunification with her children. Louisa’s assertion that she has not been given enough time to turn her life around is simply without merit.
American Indian Law Journal — Fall 2016 Volume
Here:
AILJ – Fall 2016
Contents
Alaska Civil Diversion Agreement with Anvik Tribe in Alaska
The agreement allows for law enforcement officers in Alaska to refer certain misdemeanor crimes and offenses to participating tribal courts for restorative justice sentencing. It’s the first of its kind agreement in Alaska and the Anvik tribe located in Anvik, AK became the first tribe to enter into this agreement with the State. Please let me know if you would like additional information. Thanks!
The following link is to an article in the local Fairbanks, AK newspaper regarding the Civil Diversion Agreement.
The following link is to the Civil Diversion Agreement itself on the State of Alaska’s website.
http://law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/170110-CivilDiversionAgreement.pdf
The Atlantic on the Presidential Memorandum on DAPL and KXL
Here.
“It’s the flip-side of the question everyone was asking last year, ‘Why doesn’t Obama just put the kibosh on Dakota Access?’” said Sarah Krakoff, a professor of tribal and resources law at the University of Colorado Boulder. “Well, it’s not really his role. It’s the Army Corps’s role, and that’s still true today.”
“Trump can’t, with the stroke of a pen, just make the Dakota Access pipeline happen. He just can’t. He doesn’t have that authority. It’s his agency’s authority, and he can’t revoke the laws that the agency just found that it has to comply with,” she added.
She added too that the executive orders seemed to be written in a typical way. Instead of commanding agencies to ignore congressionally passed law, the orders request that they expedite or reconsider previous judgments. “Executive orders are legal orders—they’re law—but they can’t contravene legislative enactments. So an executive order can’t say, ‘Ignore the [National Environmental Policy Act] and give me a pipeline,’” she told me.
“If the federal law gives decision-making authority to a particular official, that official has to make the decision,” said John Leshy, a professor of real property law and a former general counsel to the U.S. Department of the Interior. “But there’s some murkiness about what the president can do. The decision maker can say no, and then the president can fire them and replace them with someone who would. But that takes time.”
Krakoff added that it would attract judicial suspicion if the Army Corps of Engineers suddenly decided that it didn’t have to make an environmental-impact statement for the Dakota Access pipeline after saying that it did just weeks ago.
“It would be hard for them to turn around on a dime and say, ‘We got this piece of paper from the president and now we don’t think that’s necessary,’” she said. “If the agency were to take a different route, legally, now, I would strongly suspect that that would be subject to litigation.”
Navajo and US Bring CERCLA Actions over Uranium Mining; Consent Decree Reached
Here is Navajo Nation’s complaint in Navajo Nation v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (D. Ariz.):
Here is the U.S. complaint in United States v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (D. Ariz.):
National Indian Law Library Bulletin (1/24/2017)
Here:
The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 1/24/17.
U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2016-2017update.html
Petitions were denied on January 9, 2017 in:
Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell (Federal Acknowledgment Process – Timeliness)
Nisenan Tribe of Nevada City Rancheria v. Jewell (Nunc Pro Tune Ruling)
R.P. v. LA County Department of Children and Family Services (Indian Child Welfare Act – Placement Preferences)
City of Myton, Utah v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction) and on January 23 in:
Aguayo v. Jewell (Tribal Governance – Membership)
Petition was filed in:
Alto v. Jewell (Native American Status) on 12/19/16.
Read the latest Tribal Supreme Court Project update memo published on 1/10/17.
U.S. Federal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2017.html
Hackford v. State of Utah (Criminal Jurisdiction)
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. BNSF Railway Company (Easement Agreement)
Scudero v. Moran (Indian Civil Rights Act – Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies)
The Tulalip Tribes v. United States (Indian Commerce Clause)
Whiteagle v. United States (Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine)
New! Tribal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/tribal/2016.html
In re Crocker (Enrollment – Disenrollment)
General Council Agency v. Ho-Chunk Nation Ethics Review Bd. (Justiciability)
Daddis v. Navajo Arts and Crafts Enterprise (Commercial Law; Employment Law)
Melchert v. Oneida Tribe of Indians Wis. Div. of Land Mgmt (Jurisdiction)
Palmer v. Hrd-Benefits (Worker’s Compensation)
Barton v. Lee (Family Law; Domestic Abuse)
Rogers v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise (Civil Law; Tort Law)
Ruffo v. Craft Worldwide Holdings, LLC (Civil Law; Tort Law)
Hadley v. Navajo Nation Dept. of Public Safety, Chinle Police Department (Commercial Law; Employment Law – Harassment)
Hazard v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation (Civil Law; Tort Law – Personal Injury)
State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.html
S.S. v. Stephanie H. (Indian Child Welfare Act – Private Severance)
In the Matter of L. M. G. M. (Indian Child Welfare Act – Termination of Parental Rights)
City of Snoqualmie v. King County Executive Dow Constantine (Property Taxation)
News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Culture & Tradition section, we feature a couple of articles about court decisions relating to the Indian Child Welfare Act. We also have updates in other sections of the bulletin on the Trump executive orders on the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines.
U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2017.html
The Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, has published the updated list of Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2017.html
Here are the articles featured this week:
Free speech & disparaging trademarks.
Tribal advocates as ministers of justice: a potentially problematic concept.
Caught on the wrong side of the line: an examination of the relationship between the payday loan industry and American Indian tribal sovereignty.
Climate change: carbon market.
Renewable energy service companies for Indian Country.
The lack of trust in a trust relationship: Indian affairs and the federal government.
Online sovereignty: the law and economics of tribal electronic commerce.
“Fed” up with acidification: “trusting” the Federal Government to protect the Tulalip Tribes’ access to shellfish beds.
U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/115_uslegislation.html
Eighteen bills were added!
Presidential Memorandum on the Dakota Access Pipeline
We spend a lot of time waiting for official documents to post to make sure the information out there about them is correct. Sarah and I were waiting all afternoon for an “official” link to this memorandum, and then I realized the link would be to the website of the White House Press Office. So. For the record, I personally saw the actual document first on Twitter from Lael Echo-Hawk (@laeleh), and then on Facebook from Bryan Newland, who had it from Nicole Willis. It does appear from the text that it will eventually be published in the Federal Record, probably tomorrow or the next day.
Here is the Memorandum (technically not an Executive Order. For the quick and easy explanation of the difference you can look here, but probably should know that President Obama’s actions in Bristol Bay, for example, were also a memorandums).
This Memorandum does not itself try to eliminate the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for DAPL, but asks the U.S. Corps of Engineers to expedite it and to consider rescinding or modifying the December 4th Memorandum posted here.
Standing Rock’s press release in response is here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.