Link to obituary here.
Former Chief Justice of the Sac & Fox Nation Supreme Court, Indian law pioneer, and tribal attorney to Sac & Fox Nation.
NYTimes: Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say
Link to article by Adam Liptak here.
Scholars across the political spectrum say Donald Trump has shown contempt for the First Amendment, separation of powers, and the rule of law. The article compares him to Andrew Jackson after Worcester v. Georgia.
Second Circuit Decides Cayuga Nation v. Tanner
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs‐Appellants, the Cayuga Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and individual officers, employees, and representatives of the Cayuga Nation, filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge) against the Village of Union Springs, the Board of Trustees of the Village, and individual Village officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs contend that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701‐2721, preempts the defendants’ efforts to enforce a local anti‐gambling ordinance against a gaming facility located on land owned by Cayuga Nation.
The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because it could not determine, in light of an ongoing leadership dispute within Cayuga Nation, whether the lawsuit was authorized as a matter of tribal law. Following a motion for reconsideration, the district court additionally held that the individual plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue in their own right.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court had jurisdiction because the Bureau of Indian Affairs had recognized Clint Halftown, who initiated this suit, as the Cayuga Nation’s “federal representative,” thereby relieving the court of the need to resolve questions of tribal law, and because the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the anti‐gaming ordinance. We agree and therefore VACATE the district court’s order dismissing the complaint and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Briefs here.
Tlingit & Haida Tribes of Alaska’s Written Testimony to Senate Indian Affairs Committee
LDS Family Services’ Federal Motion for TRO Against Navajo Tribal Court [updated]
Here are the materials in the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, et al v. RJ et al, 16-cv-00453 (D. Utah):
Doc. 2 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
Doc. 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction
Exhibit A – Tribal Court Amended Complaint
Update:
19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction
31 Navajo Nation Motion to Intervene
32 Navajo Nation Motion to Dismiss
Tulalip Tribe’s Written Testimony Submitted to Senate Indian Affairs Committee
Eight Circuit Decides Wolfchild Appeal
Here is the opinion in Wolfchild v. Redwood County.
An excerpt:
Appellants-plaintiffs filed this purported class action claiming the right to title and possession of twelve square miles of land in southern Minnesota (“twelve square miles”). Specifically, Appellants allege they are lineal descendants of the Mdewakanton band of the Sioux tribe who were loyal to the United States during the 1862 uprising (“loyal Mdewakanton”). Appellants claim the Secretary of the Interior set apart the twelve square miles for the loyal Mdewakanton and their descendants and, thereby, the loyal Mdewakanton have the exclusive right to title, use, and possession of the twelve square miles. Appellees physically possess or claim a property interest in the twelve square miles. The issues underlying this case are complex, requiring interpretation of over 150-year-old statutes, regulations, and legislative history, understanding of past mistreatment of Indian tribes by the United States, and a complicated area of the law. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s grant of Appellees’ motions to dismiss. But we conclude the district court abused its discretion when imposing sanctions and vacate the district court’s sanctions order. We, further, hold issues relating to the appellate-cost bond are moot. But we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of assessing whether the municipal government Appellees (“Municipal Appellees”) are entitled to costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Briefs here.
NAICJA Joins Forces with NCJFCJ
Link to Announcement: here
Boulder, CO: The National American Indian Court Judges Association (NAICJA) is pleased to announce that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been memorialized establishing a working relationship between NAICJA and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). Importantly, the MOU provides for joint membership in the two organizations, allowing NAICJA members access to the resources of both national judicial membership organizations.
Established in 1969, NAICJA is a non-profit corporation and the only membership association of tribal court judges and tribal court personnel in the nation. NAICJA’s current projects and goals are concerned with: advocating on behalf of tribal justice systems; securing necessary funding for tribal justice systems so they may continue to excel; providing education and training to tribal judiciaries; providing networking and mentorship opportunities for tribal judiciaries; and improving cooperation between tribal, state, and federal judiciaries.
The NCJFCJ, established in 1937, is a non-profit corporation with a primary focus on improving juvenile and family court system practice in the handling of cases involving children, families, and victims of domestic violence. As one of the oldest judicial membership organizations in the nation, the NCJFCJ is unique as a leader in providing continuing education, technical assistance, research, and policy development in the field of juvenile and family justice. Among the myriad current NCJFCJ initiatives, several align closely with NAICJA’s projects and goals and hold promise for potential application and implementation in Indian Country, including: a national network of more than 100 juvenile and family courts that develop and test promising practice; the Juvenile Drug Court Training and Technical Assistance Project; the Resource Center on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody; and the Family Court Enhancement Project.
Beginning on June 1, 2016, new or renewing members of the NAICJA interested in joint membership will pay a $215 fee directly to NAICJA (existing NAICJA members should contact NAICJA directly for details on upgrading to a joint membership).
NAICJA is excited to join forces with the NCJFCJ as the two organizations work to strengthen the functions and collaborative opportunities of state and tribal court systems, especially as they pertain to juvenile and family courts. NAICJA encourages its members to take advantage of the joint membership opportunity and the incredible resources available from the NCJFCJ.
Contact Information:
Justice Richard Blake
President, Board of Directors
National American Indian Court Judges Association
Email: president@naicja.org
BPhone: (303) 449-4112
Article on the Disparity Between the States Regarding Termination of Parental Rights
Here. Not ICWA-specific, but an interesting article on the wide difference of the states in terminating parental rights.
Across the country, the availability of effective support services is viewed as crucial in helping reduce the need for foster care placements and parental rights terminations, both of which are considered undesirable outcomes for most children.
Professor Martin Guggenheim, a child welfare expert at New York University School of Law, is among those contending that too many parents lose their rights and too many children go into foster care. Parents’ legal prospects vary widely from state to state when it comes to challenging termination, he says; many who are indigent are represented by court-appointed lawyers with heavy caseloads.
Too often, Guggenheim said, terminations produce “legal orphans” — young people who are separated from their parents, then do not receive a successful adoption placement, and eventually age out of the foster care system on their own.
“They’ve lost their family and gained nothing in return,” he said.
Nationwide, according to federal figures, the number of children affected by parental rights terminations declined from 85,525 to 64,398 between 2005 and 2014, mirroring a broader drop in the number of children placed in foster care. Arizona and Texas were among a handful of states bucking the trend, with more terminations and more children in care.
Figures from Arizona show how difficult it is for a parent to block a termination order once it’s requested by child-welfare officials. In a six-month period last year, 2,232 termination petitions were granted and seven were denied.
As a side note, Professor Guggenheim was one of the lead attorneys on the ICWA/Gold Standard Baby Girl amicus brief.
AUSA Opportunity in Montana
Link to job announcement here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.