Chickasaw Nation Indian Child Welfare Attorney Vacancy

Sarah M Donnelly

Link to job announcement here.

Position closes:  08/24/16

Indian Child Welfare Attorney

This position represents the Chickasaw Nation in juvenile deprived cases arising under the Indian Child Welfare Act in both in-state and out-of-state courts.  Extensive travel is involved.  Working knowledge of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act and courtroom experience are highly desirable.

Alaska Drops Akiachak Trust Lands Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the press release the State of Alaska Department of Law:

DoL Press Release – AG Not Appealing Lands Into Trust Case 081516

Here is the press release from NARF:

08 15 16 NARF Press Release RE Akiachak

Legal materials here.

 

 

Federal Judge Orders Millions to be Paid to Colville/State Plaintiffs by Teck Caminco

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the order from Pakootas v. Teck Caminco Metals (E.D. Wash.):

1955 Phase I DCT Order

2417 Phase II DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Briefs in U.S. v. Washington Ocean Fishing Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (subproceeding 09-01):

Makah Opening Brief

Four Tribes Brief

Hoh Tribe Brief

Six Tribes Brief

Washington Brief

Lower court decision here. Lower court materials here.

Nooksack Court of Appeals Holds Tribal Police Chief in Contempt

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order:

In re Gabriel Galanda v Nooksack Tribal Court Second Order on Motion to Enforce Contempt Order

Washington has Petitioned for Rehearing/Rehearing En Banc in the Culverts Case

Ann Tweedy2 Comments

Here.

Previous coverage of the 9th Circuit panel decision is here.

UPDATE (8/23/16):

119-Idaho-Montana Amicus

121-Amicus filed

122-1-Amici motion from Klamath basin

122-2-Klamath basin amici brief

UPDATE (5/19/17):

Tribal Response

US Response

Muscogee (Creek) Reservation Boundaries at Issue in Tenth Circuit Death Penalty Habeas Appeal

Teresa Walrod5 Comments

A member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation has challenged his death penalty conviction by the State of Oklahoma on grounds that the state lacked jurisdiction because the alleged crime occurred within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s historic reservation.  A federal district court denied the petition, finding that the reservation had been disestablished.  The Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma filed an amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit, arguing that under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nebraska v. Parker, the Creek reservation’s boundaries remain intact.

Appellant’s Brief Murphy v Royal;

Brief Amicus Curiae Murphy v Royal.

Federal Circuit Materials in Wyandot Trust Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Wyandot Nation of Kansas v. United States (Fed. Cir.):

Wyandot Opening Brief

Wyandot Appeal – PCPart1

Wyandot Appeal – PCPart2

WYANDOT APPEAL PCPart3

WYANDOTAPPEALPCPart4

US Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Alex Skibine on “Indians, Race, and Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Alexander Skibine has posted “Indians, Race, and Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country,” forthcoming in the Albany Government Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

With the possible exception of the Indian Major Crimes Act, the classification of “Indian” for the purposes of the ICCA and the Duro Fix is not “racial” even if it includes non-enrolled people of Indian ancestry with significant connections to tribal communities. Furthermore, although the first prong of the Rogers test should be eliminated on policy grounds, the holding of the Zepeda court that the first prong could be satisfied by proof of blood quantum from any Indian tribe, recognized or not, is highly suspicious, seems to be arbitrary, and boosts the argument that the classification of “Indian” in such cases is a racial classification.

Acknowledging the problems plaguing current law enforcement on Indian reservations, this article has endorsed a position which would allow Indian tribes to determine the meaning of “Indian” for the purpose of the Duro fix. The Article also argued that the universe of “Indians” for the purpose of federal jurisdiction should be limited to enrolled tribal members and those eligible for such membership unless the relevant tribe has enacted precise standards delineating who is an Indian for the purpose of federal jurisdiction on its reservation.

Highly recommended.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction; Judge Bright Dissents on Race Discrepancy in Sentencing Issue

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Lasley.

Briefs:

Lasley Brief

US Brief

An excerpt from Judge Bright’s dissent:

I write to protest the sentencing disparity in this case and the heavy disparity in sentences for other similarly-situated individuals based purely on their race and residence. Appellant-defendant Gordon Lasley (Lasley), an Indian and twenty-six-years old at the time of sentencing, will spend the rest of his life in prison for a conviction of two counts of second-degree murder, but a sentence imposed as though the conviction was for two counts of first-degree murder. This result comes about because our precedent: (1) purports to allow the imposition of the federal sentencing regime to cases under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153 without consideration of sentences imposed and actual time served for similar state-law crimes; and (2) authorizes federal district courts to find a defendant committed a greater offense for the purpose of sentencing when a jury expressly convicts a defendant of the lesser-included offense. The consequence of both precedents is a high probability Lasley will serve a longer sentence than a white citizen because Lasley is an Indian who committed a crime in Indian Country. This disparity resting on Lasley’s status as an Indian is unjust, unfair, and improper for the reasons set forth herein. Thus, Lasley’s sentence should be reversed and remanded.