Update in North Fork v. California: Case Terminated

Here are the materials in North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians v. State of California (E.D. Cal.):

39 Picayune Amicus Brief

41 North Fork Response

46 DCT Order

Prior order here.

New Issue of American Indian Law Review

Here:

Articles

Protecting Tribal Skies: Why Indian Tribes Possess the Sovereign Authority to Regulate Tribal Airspace – William M. Haney

A Starving Culture: Alaskan Native Villages Fight to Use Traditional Hunting and Fishing Grounds – Jeffrey W. Stowers, Jr.

Comments

Violation of Statute and the Mental Health Crisis Among American Indians – Abilene Slaton

Lessons Learned: Avoiding the Hardships of Tribal Mineral Leasing in the Development of Oklahoma Tribal Wind Energy – Wyatt Swinford

Nothing Personal (or Subject Matter) About It: Jurisdictional Risk as an Impetus for Non-Tribal Opt-Outs from Tribal Economies, and the Need for Administrative Response – Joel Pruett

Special Feature

Implementing a Greener REDD+ in Black & White: Preserving Wounaan Lands and Culture in Panama with Indigenous-Sensitive Modifications to REDD+ – Cindy Campbell

Tenth Circuit Briefs in State of Kansas v. NIGC (Quapaw Tribe)

Here:

STATE AND COUNTY OPENING BRIEF

QUAPAW BRIEF

NIGC Brief

Lower court materials here.

Jamul Action Committee’s Challenge Dismissed

Here are the materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):

123 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

127-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss

133-1 JAC Motion for Summary J

143 JAC Response to 123

144 JAC Response to 127

145 Tribe Reply

146 Federal Reply

151 DCT Order

This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit; those materials here.

Tenth Circuit Rules in Favor of Ute Tribe (again) in Reservation Boundaries Dispute

Here is the opinion in Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. Myton.

An excerpt:

We’re beginning to think we have an inkling of Sisyphus’s fate. Courts of law exist to resolve disputes so that both sides might move on with their lives. Yet here we are, forty years in, issuing our seventh opinion in the Ute line and still addressing the same arguments we have addressed so many times before. Thirty years ago, this court decided all boundary disputes between the Ute Indian Tribe, the State of Utah, and its subdivisions. The only thing that remained was for the district court to memorialize that mandate in a permanent injunction. Twenty years ago, we modified our mandate in one respect, but stressed that in all others our decision of a decade earlier remained in place. Once more, we expected this boundary dispute to march expeditiously to its end. Yet just last year the State of Utah and several of its counties sought to relitigate those same boundaries. And now one of its cities tries to do the same thing today. Over the last forty years the questions haven’t changed — and neither have our answers. We just keep rolling the rock.

Briefs:

Myton City Brief

Myton City Reply to US

US Amicus Brief

Utah Amicus Brief

Ute Opening Brief

Ute Reply Brief

Washington COA Decision in Comenout v. Washington State Liquor Control Board

Here.

An excerpt:

In State v. Comenout, our Supreme Court upheld the State’s exercise of nonconsensual criminal jurisdiction over tribal members selling unstamped cigarettes from an unlicensed store located on trust allotment property lying outside the borders of an Indian reservation. Edward Comenout challenges that decision in this administrative forfeiture action appeal arising out of the same seized cigarettes at issue in Comenout. He claims Comenout is not binding because the case was remanded and ultimately dismissed. But we are bound by that decision unless and until the Washington Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court rules otherwise. Neither court has done so. And under Comenout, it is clear the State court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this administrative forfeiture action and that Comenout is not exempt from the State’s cigarette tax as an “Indian retailer.” Because Comenout fails to establish any error of law or arbitrary and capricious action under the Administrative Procedure Act2 (APA) standards, we affirm

Kevin Washburn to be 2016 NITA Keynote

Here (Kevin Washburn Press Release 8-8-2016):

NITA is pleased to announce Kevin Washburn, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law as this year’s Keynote .

Dean Kevin Washburn
Dean Kevin Washburn (Photo by Mark Holm © 2011_for UNM School of Law)

Keynote Speaker.  Kevin Washburn is currently a law professor, and was previously the dean, of the UNM School of Law.  Washburn previously served as the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in the Obama Administration in Washington, D.C. from 2012 through the end of 2015. In that role, he was the highest ranking official in charge of federal Indian policy for the United States government, overseeing the Bureaus of Indian Affairs and Indian Education, together consisting of more than 8000 employees, and executed a budget of roughly $2.8 Billion. He also testified approximately thirty times before Congressional Committees and worked on a daily basis with the White House. He also appeared several times before the United Nations in Geneva to defend our nation’s adherence to international treaties.

Washburn graduated from Yale Law School, and has been a trial attorney at the Department of Justice in Washington and a federal prosecutor in New Mexico. He also served as the general counsel of the National Indian Gaming Commission, a federal regulatory agency in Washington, D.C.  As an academic, he has taught law at the University of Arizona, the University of Minnesota and Harvard Law School. He also has several books to his name, and is a co-author/co-editor of the Cohen Handbook.

Washburn began his legal education in 1990 at the Pre-Law Summer Institute at the University of New Mexico. He is a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma.

NITA is honored and pleased to have Kevin Washburn as the keynote speaker for this year’s conference.  Additional conference details and registration information can be found on NITA’s website at:  http://intertribaltaxalliance.org/

WaPo: “Cleveland’s Chief Wahoo: Why the most offensive image in sports has yet to die”

Here.

Morisset, Schlosser, Jozwiak & Somerville Attorney Posting

Attorney position available with private law firm representing American Indian tribes, Alaska Native, and tribal organizations. Bar admission, at least two years experience, academic excellence, leadership qualities, significant writing, and social skills required. Experience in federal Indian law, environmental law and federal court practice preferred.  Client services will include litigation, advice, negotiation and research. Travel required. Salary DOE. Send letter, résumé and writing sample to Ann Bernheisel; Morisset, Schlosser, Jozwiak & Somerville, 801 2nd Ave., Ste. 1115, Seattle, WA 98104, or via e-mail at a.bernheisel@msaj.com