Final AFCARS Rule with ICWA Elements

Here is the final Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System Rule incorporating a number of new data elements states will have to report to the feds. These elements include important information on ICWA cases and placements. Many people in our field worked very hard to get these elements included, which required a supplemental notice and comment period.

This is the first time these ICWA data elements will be required by the federal government. The first anticipated annual AFCARS report that will include the information is anticipated by 2020 (thanks, Heather, for this information!).

Petitioners Request Out-of-State Lawyers Be Allowed to Represent Protesters

Link: The Bismarck Tribune article by Caroline Grueskin

Download(PDF):

The unprecedented arrests at Standing Rock overextended available defense attorneys. Defendants are worried their civil rights are at risk and are asking the courts to allow out-of-state attorneys to defend them.

Excerpts of Tilton’s testimony, by topic:

On the reluctance of in-state attorneys:

[M]any licensed North Dakota criminal defense attorneys feel conflicted in taking these cases, either because the attorneys have close relations with law enforcement folk who are undertaking the arrests, or because the attorneys have personal interests in the pipeline construction industry, some of them directly with the DAPL. Other licensed North Dakota criminal defense attorneys have been reticent to take anti-DAPL protesters as clients because they live far distant from the South Central District courts where the cases will be tried. Some criminal defense attorneys have already maxed out their public defender contract allotments. Others have undertaken representation of one or a few DAPL protesters and are not interested in taking on more…

I have also personally talked with multiple persons charged as defendants in these anti-pipeline protests who have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with assigned attorneys given to them through the Indigent Defense Commission. Multiple defendants have complained that some public defender-assigned attorneys have been unwilling to take their phone calls, have not called them back, and have seemed uninterested in doing a thorough investigation of the factual circumstances of the arrests.

On the current caseload:

… I count 113 defendants as having requested an appointed attorney from the Indigent Defense office, but having been turned down.

… I count 40 individuals who are listed in the column “Returned Mail,” meaning that letters to them have been returned to the clerk’s office for some reason. All but 9 of these defendants also have “None” entered in the “Attorney” column, meaning that some of all of the remaining 31 people will not be getting notices from the court of from counsel.

[A]s of December 2, 2016, 264 defendants will be appearing pro se unless means are developed to provide them access to counsel.

On the cost:

In those discussions [with the North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents (CLCI)] I have learned that none of the $17 million in emergency funding sought by the governor has been attributed to the increased need for legal defense resources to guarantee the right to counsel for indigent defendants. Similarly, it appears none of the additional funds has been attributed to supplementing the already-stressed court personnel.

Bloomberg Commentary on Cherokee Marriage Equality

Noah Feldman has published “Cherokees’ Gay-Marriage Law is Traditional.”

North Dakota SCT Issues Ruling on Tribal Jurisdiction

Here is the opinion in Fredericks v. Fredericks. An excerpt:

Lyndon Fredericks appeals, and Bole Resources, LLC, and others (“Bole defendants”) cross-appeal from a judgment declaring the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action, reforming a quit claim mineral deed, quieting title in the mineral interests in Paul Fredericks, and ordering Lyndon Fredericks to pay the Bole defendants damages plus interest and their attorney fees. Because we conclude the district court correctly ruled it had subject-matter jurisdiction, its findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and it did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Briefs here:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply Brief

Federal Court Dismisses Energy Company Counterclaim against Battle Mountain

Here are the materials in Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Nev.):

83-motion-to-dismiss-counterclaim

92-carlin-resources-response

93-reply

94-order

The main suit against the BLM is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Materials here.

 

Wash. Superior Court Refuses to Recognize Nooksack Holdover Council or Tribal Court Decisions

Here is yesterday’s order in In re Gabriel S. Galanda:

In Re Gabriel Galanda v Nooksack Tribal Court – Whatcom County Superior Court Order Denying Nooksack Police Chief’s Motion to Vacate

Meyers v. Wisconsin Oneida Cert Petition — Another Immunity Case

Here is the petition in Meyers v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin:

Cert petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether Congress abrogated the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe under 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., by providing that “any…government” may be liable for damages.
2. Whether an individual who receives a computer generated cash register receipt displaying more than the last five digits of the individual’s credit card number and the card’s expiration date has suffered a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Lower court materials here.

Federals Prevail in Online Tribal Bingo Suit

Here are the materials in State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel (S.D. Cal.):

61 US Motion

63 CA Motion

67 Tribal Response

68 US Reply

69 CA Reply

80 DCT Order Granting US Motion

Prior post here.

Alaska Federation of Natives Files Cert Stage Amicus Brief in Polar Bear Case

Here is the brief filed in Alaska v. Jewell:

afn-amicus-brief

Here are the cert petitions:

alaska-cert-petition

alaska-oil-gas-assn-cert-petition

Federal Claims Court Dismisses Action by “Chakchiuma Nation”

Here are the materials in Chakchiuma Nation v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

6-motion-to-dismiss

7-response

8-reply

10-order