Picayune Rancheria Files Complaint Against DOI to Stop Off Reservation Gaming

Download complaint here.

Link to news coverage here.

Nez Perce Files Suit Over Final Decision in Clear Creek Project

Download complaint here.

Link to news coverage here.

California Supreme Court on Issues ICWA Notice Opinion

Here.

This is the In re Isaiah H. decision, where amici included the United States and California Indian Legal Services on behalf of appellant mother. Briefing was completed in this case more than a year ago, and oral arguments were heard in May.

We granted review to decide whether a parent who does not bring a timely appeal from a juvenile court order that subsumes a finding of ICWA‘s inapplicability may challenge such a finding in the course of appealing from a subsequent order terminating parental rights. Because ICWA imposes on the juvenile court a continuing duty to inquire whether the child is an Indian child, we hold that the parent may a challenge a finding of ICWA‘s inapplicability in an appeal from the subsequent order, even if she did not raise such a challenge in an appeal from the initial order.

***

The continuing nature of a juvenile court‘s duty to inquire into a child‘s Indian status appears on the face of section 224.3(a). As noted, that provision reads: “The court . . . ha[s] an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child for whom a petition under Section 300 . . . has been . . . filed is or may be an Indian child in all dependency proceedings and in any juvenile wardship proceedings if the child is at risk of entering foster care or is in foster care.” (§ 224.3(a).) The plain language of this provision — declaring an “affirmative and continuing duty” that applies to “all dependency proceedings” — means that the juvenile court in this case had a present duty to inquire whether Isaiah was an Indian child at the April 2013 proceeding to terminate Ashlee‘s parental rights, even though the court had previously found no reason to know Isaiah was an Indian child at the January 2012 proceeding to place Isaiah in foster care. Because the validity of the April 2013 order is necessarily premised on the juvenile court‘s fulfillment of that duty, there is nothing improper or untimely about Ashlee‘s contention in this appeal that the juvenile court erred in discharging that duty.

Briefs here.

SCOTUSBlog Profile of Ian Gershengorn

The Acting Solicitor General. Here.

Hualapai Ranch Tribal Court Litigation Dismissed with Prejudice

Download ruling here.

Link to news coverage here.

Maricopa County Superior Court found that sovereign immunity bars contractor’s suit for breach of contract.  The contractor’s tribal court case is still pending in the Hualapai Court of Appeals.

Federal Court Issues Order in Little Traverse Reservation Boundaries Case Bifurcating Merits and Remedies Phases

Here is the order in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Snyder (W.D. Mich.):

91. 2016-07-06 Opinion and Order Bifurcating Case and Granting Denying Plf’s MSD

An excerpt:

“‘Only Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries,’ and its intent to do so must be clear.” Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072, 1078–79 (2016) (quoting Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 470 (1984)). Even when a reservation exists and has not been diminished, however, a “long delay in seeking equitable relief . . . [can] evoke the doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, and render inequitable the piecemeal shift in governance [a] suit seeks unilaterally to initiate.” City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 221 (2005); cf. Parker, 136 S. Ct. at 1082 (citing Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 217–221) (“Because petitioners have raised only the single question of diminishment, we express no view about whether equitable considerations of laches and acquiescence may curtail the Tribe’s power to tax the retailers of Pender in light of the Tribe’s century-long absence from the undisputed lands.”).

These two principles frame the dispute this motion presents: May equitable defenses lie in this lawsuit? To best answer this question and organize this case, bifurcation is appropriate. In the first phase, which will address the existence and diminishment of a reservation, equitable defenses cannot lie. If necessary, the Court will revisit the dispute at the second, remedial phase.

Here are the briefs:

Doc. 66 – Tribe’s Memorandum in Support of Combined Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Defenses or Rule 26(b) Motion to Limit Discovery

Doc. 75 – State’s Brief in Opposition to Tribe’s Combined Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Rule 12(F) Motion to Strike Defenses or Rule 26(B) Limit Discovery

Doc. 80 – Tribe’s Combined Reply in Support of Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Alternative Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Defenses and Rule 26(b) Motion to Limit Discovery

Lewis v. Clarke is SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day

Here.

The petition is here.

Poarch Band of Creek Indians Seek Asst. Atty. Gen. for Governmental Operations

Download job announcement here.  Closing Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 by 5:00 PM CT

Registration Extended for 2-Day Admissions Workshop at MSU Law

Link to original post here.

New Application Deadline: July 20, 2016
Questions? Contact Kate Rosier, Executive Director, Indian Legal Program

Apply Today!
Native American Law School Admissions Workshops
August 5-6 at Michigan State University College of Law (2-day)

Superior Court Finds Upper Skagit Tribe Necessary Party in Declaratory Action

Download Court’s letter opinion in re: Schuyler v. Unsworth & Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Thurston County Cause No. 14-2-02373-9 here.

A member of the Upper Skagit Tribe filed an action in Superior Court for declaratory relief on certain tribal hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Point Elliot.  However, the Court held that the case affects the rights of the Tribe and therefore the case must be dismissed if it cannot be joined within 90 days.