Dems — we’re up for you hiring your own lawyers:
Rs — terminate your asses:
Guess who won?
Blast from the Past: 1952 Indian Affairs Platforms of Each Party
New York Federal Court Allows ICRA Habeas Petitions to Move Forward in Cayuga Banishments
Here are the available materials in Parker v. Halftown (N.D. N.Y.):
SCOTUS Denies Cert in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Arizona
National Constitution Center Panel with Richotte and Fletcher TODAY: “Native Americans and the Supreme Court”
Here:
In celebration of Native American Heritage month, Keith Richotte Jr., author of the forthcoming book, The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution and Matthew L.M. Fletcher of the University of Michigan discuss Native American history and law through the stories of landmark Supreme Court cases. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
Register Here to Attend Online
Virginia Federal Dismisses FMLA Suit against Navajo Business
Here are the materials in Butrick v. Diné Development Corp. (E.D. Va.):
Oklahoma Federal Court Dismisses Some Modoc Claims against Alleged Fraudster But Allows Counterclaims to Proceed
Here are many many many materials in Modoc Nation v. Shah or Bohl or Softek or whatever it is (N.D. Okla.):
82 Second Amended Counterclaim
Oklahoma Federal Court Denies Habeas Petition of Non-Indian Freedmen Descendant Convicted of Indian Country Crime
Here are the materials in Cook v. Dunn (N.D. Okla.):
Tennessee COA Dismisses ICWA Appeal as Interlocutory, but Notes that Existing Indian Family Exception is NOT THE LAW
Here is the opinion in In re Epik W.:
The EIF excerpt:
In remanding the case, however, we would be remiss if we did not call the Juvenile Court’s attention to the shared agreement that both the Department and the Tribe have in this appeal regarding the Existing Indian Family Doctrine, which was the doctrinal basis upon which the Juvenile Court rejected the ICWA and denied the request for transfer. Indeed, in response to the Tribe’s general advocacy on appeal concerning the invalidity of the Existing Indian Family Doctrine, the Department has specifically disclaimed the vitality of the doctrine, arguing, as we previously noted, that federal regulations “foreclose reliance” on it. Although we have little doubt that the parties still disagree on other issues relevant to a decision to transfer this matter to the tribal court, the shared agreement between the Tribe and the Department regarding the Existing Indian Family Doctrine strongly counsels in favor of the Juvenile Court revisiting the transfer request (as the doctrine was its sole cited basis for denial).
There is only one public brief available, but it’s relevant:
Chukchansi Sues California over Class III Gaming Compact Negotiations
Here is the complaint in Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians v. Newsom (C.D. Cal.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.