Important Bear’s Ears Meeting on July 16 in Bluff, Utah

802050david

The Bear’s Ears Coalition, an inter-tribal group supporting a National Monument to protect sacred lands in Southern Utah, is hoping supporters will attend a meeting this Saturday, July 16 in Bluff Utah to express their support for the proposal. Tribal people have been working hard on this proposal and there is momentum, but the Secretary and other administration officials need to see that support is broad and deep.  See below for details from the Coalition:

Urgent! Secretary Jewell will be in Bluff on July 16. Stand with #ProtectBearsEarsNow ProtectBearsEars.org/meeting

Coalition website: http://www.bearsearscoalition.org/

Join tribes in support of a Bears Ears National Monument on July 16 in Bluff, UT! Don’t miss your chance to tell the Obama administration why it’s time to #ProtectBearsEarsNow. RSVP: ProtectBearsEars.org/meeting

Ask @POTUS to make history and honor tribes’ request to #ProtectBearsEarsNow!

Your voice matters! Looting, grave robbing still threaten the Bears Ears region:vimeo.com/170218281 #ProtectBearsEarsNow

Tribal Consultation Session Call In for Probate Regulation Revisions

Sarah M Donnelly

Tomorrow is the second of two Tribal consultation sessions to provide a forum to share insights and make recommendations related to the probate of Indian estates.  Specifically, three areas have been identified for modification which would have an immediate impact in streamlining the probate process. Additional information on these potential areas is provided in the following PowerPoint: Draft Probation Revisions Presentation.

The consultation information:

  • Wednesday, July 13th, 2016: 2:00pm-4:00pm, EST    Call-in Number: 1-800-857-7479, Passcode: 6543434

The Department will also be hosting a listening session on Monday, June 27th, 2016 in Spokane, Washington, in conjunction with the National Congress of American Indians mid-year conference.

Written comments must be received by August 1, 2016. Methods for submitting comments include via email: consultation@bia.gov; or via hard copy to:

Ms. Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, MS-3071-MIB, Washington, DC 20240.

ICWA Director Vacancy with Association of Village Council Presidents

Sarah M Donnelly

Link to job site here.

The ICWA Director is responsible for the overall operations of the ICWA department and personnel. It includes supervision of the ICWA Program involving case management oversight entered into on behalf of the compacted villages in the AVCP region.

Black Hills CLE Coming Up July 22 in Rapid City

Sarah M Donnelly

Don’t miss the Black Hills settlement CLE Course July 22 in Rapid City, S.D.

Register today for ILTF’s Continuing Legal Education (CLE) course on the Black Hills settlement. The course, which is open to the public, will cover the Black Hills Claim (Docket 148-78) and the 1851 Treaty Title Claim (Docket 74).

The course will be held at the Comfort Suites Hotel and Convention Center in Rapid City, S.D., on Friday, July 22, 2016 from 10 a.m. to noon.

Click here to register now

The fee to attend is $200 for attorneys receiving CLE credits. Admission is free for law students and the Governor of South Dakota. Others may attend for a nominal contribution of $30 to ILTF to help offset costs of the event. Refreshments will be provided.

Instructor: Mario Gonzalez, Esq. of the Gonzalez Law Firm in Rapid City. Mr. Gonzalez has worked as an attorney for the Oglala Sioux Tribe and other tribal entities for more than 30 years. He is an expert on the Black Hills settlement.

Please direct questions about the Black Hills CLE to Nichlas Emmons at nemmons@iltf.org

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Injunction Favoring Poarch Band against Escambia County Assessor

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Hildreth.

An excerpt:

The Poarch Band of Creek Indians (“Poarch Band”) sued James Hildreth,
Tax Assessor of Escambia County, Alabama, for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the assessment of property taxes on lands owned by the Poarch Band in Escambia County, Alabama, and held in trust by the United States (“Trust Property”). The Poarch Band maintains the Trust Property is exempt from taxation pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (“IRA”). See 25 U.S.C. § 465.1 The district court granted injunctive relief barring the tax assessment efforts during the pendency of the case, and Hildreth appeals.2 Finding no abuse of discretion and no error of law, we affirm.

Briefs here.

Cert Petition in Kelsey v. Pope

Teresa Walrod2 Comments

Cert Petition regarding the question of the Little River Band’s criminal jurisdiction over off-reservation crimes affecting core tribal government interests.

Questions presented:

1.  Whether Indian tribes can prosecute their members for acts that occur outside the tribe’s territory absent Congressional authorization; and

2. Whether the Band’s retroactive expansion of a narrow and precise jurisdictional statute to encompass an extraterritorial act previously outside its plain terms violates the due process protections of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a), and Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 647 (1964).

No. 16-5120 Kelsey Cert Petition

Prior posts on Kelsey v. Pope, including lower court decisions, are here.

 

Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial of Relief in Pala Band Disenrollment Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Aguayo v. Jewell.

An excerpt:

This appeal analyzes whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it concluded that, according to tribal law, it had no authority to intervene in a tribal membership dispute, in which more than 150 people were disenrolled from the Pala Band of Mission Indians (Pala Band or Band). We conclude that it did not, and affirm the decision of the district court.

Appellate Briefs:
Doc. 13 – Appellant’s Opening Brief
Doc. 23 – Answering Brief of the Federal Defendants
Doc. 21 – Appellant’s Reply Brief

Lower court materials here

Draft ROW Bill Requests Tribal Comments By July 13th

Sarah M Donnelly2 Comments

Download proposed rule here.

NCAI has been asked to share this draft of the Rights-of-Way bill with Tribes for feedback before it is introduced next Friday by Congressman Luján (D-NM).  Turnaround time to provide comments is by middle of next week.

Please review and if you have any feedback, thoughts, or questions, please contact Graham Mason, Legislative Director, Office of Congressman Luján at Graham.Mason@mail.house.gov.

California Court of Appeals Finds No Good Cause to Deviate from Placement Preferences in Alexandria P. Case

Kate Fort

Opinion here. The Court of Appeals upholds that the order placing Alexandria P. with her family in Utah.

Information page with previous posts and holdings here.

We have twice remanded the matter because the lower court used an incorrect standard in assessing good cause. The dependency court has now correctly applied the law governing good cause, considering the bond Alexandria has developed over time with the P.s, as well as a number of other factors related to her best interests. Those other factors include Alexandria’s relationship with her extended family and half-siblings; the capacity of her extended family to maintain and develop her sense of self-identity, including her cultural identity and connection to the Choctaw tribal culture; and the P.s’ relative reluctance or resistance to foster Alexandria’s relationship with her extended family or encourage exploration of and exposure to her Choctaw cultural identity.

And

The P.s also do not—and in our view cannot—provide an adequate response to an issue raised most effectively by minor’s appellate counsel. Even though they appear before the court by virtue of their status as de facto parents, the P.s’ efforts to show good cause are motivated by their own interests. Minor’s counsel, not the P.s, has a legal and ethical obligation to represent Alexandria’s interests.(In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 675-677.) The P.s lack the right to assert Alexandria’s interests because Alexandria has her own counsel, who represents her interests and also acts as her guardian ad litem.
***

We recognize that the P.s are claiming that Alexandria’s best interests are served by a finding of good cause, but their argument is undermined by the fact that minor’s counsel argued just the opposite. We are unaware of any published case where a court has upheld a departure from the ICWA’s placement preferences contrary to the position of the minor. In other words, in every published case upholding a good cause finding,
counsel for the minor either advocated for the finding, was aligned with the party advocating for a finding of good cause, or was silent.