News Coverage of Nooksack Tribal Judge Removal
BIA’s Brief in Support of Partial Dismissal in Mashpee Wampanoag Carcieri Challenge
Here are the materials, so far, in Littlefield et. al. v. U.S. Department of Interior (D. Mass.):
Doc. 1 – Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Doc. 10 – United States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Dismissal
Except:
Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action seeks a declaration that the IRA, enacted over eighty years ago, is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs specifically allege that the IRA’s provision authorizing the Secretary to acquire land in trust on behalf of federally-recognized Indian tribes somehow reflects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. This legal question, however, has long been resolved against Plaintiffs by all courts to consider it, including the First Circuit in a decision binding on this Court. Federal courts have held, consistently and repeatedly, that the Secretary’s authority to acquire land in trust under the IRA does not violate the United States Constitution because there are sufficient intelligible principles provided in the statute and its legislative history to guide the Secretary’s discretion whether to acquire land in trust on behalf of a tribe. Moreover, it has been over 85 years since the Supreme Court invalidated any statute on the grounds of excessive delegation of legislative authority. The Supreme Court in fact has only found two statues to be a violation of the non-delegation doctrine, neither of which are comparable to the statute at issue here. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action.
Pauma Band Cross-Petition in Gaming Compact Dispute with California
Here is the cert petition in Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California:
Question presented:
One of the statutory elements for establishing a prima facie case of bad faith negotiation against a state under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., is that “a Tribal-State compact has not been entered into.” 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(ii)(I). In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit interpreted this language according to the status quo ante, holding that an Indian tribe who sought and obtained a declaration rescinding a compact could not pursue a claim for latent bad faith negotiation against a state that induced the compact through material misrepresentations in order to increase its tax receipts (i.e., “revenue sharing”) by 2,460%. With this holding seeming to violate deep-rooted principles of retroactivity and interpretive norms for the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act set forth within this Court’s precedent, the question presented is:Whether an Indian tribe can pursue a bad faith negotiation claim against a state under Section 2710(d)(7)(A)(i) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act after rescinding a compact induced by misrepresentation or other latent bad faith conduct, and thus bringing its circumstances into compliance with the statutory requirement that “a Tribal-State compact has not been entered into.”
California’s petition is here.
Oregon Court of Appeals Decision and Dissent on whether Indian status is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction
The majority and dissent opinions address when the argument as to Indian status must be raised in a state prosecution. State v. Hill
Briefs here:
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Now Hiring Assistant Tribal Attorney and Law Clerk
Co-Counsel in Failed Lawsuit Against Montana Tribe is Now Trump’s Foreign Advisor
Trump Foreign Policy Advisor Tied To Montana Anti-Tribal Efforts
Excerpt:
Joseph Schmitz is well at home with the anti-Muslim tenor of Kogan’s anti-CSKT lawsuit, having supported Donald Trump’s call to bar Muslims from entering the United States, according to the Washington Post. Schmitz is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a Washington, D.C-based think tank and leading force promoting the idea that Islamic sharia law is taking over the United States.
Remedies Brief Filed in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Fleming (Van Hunnik)
After winning a partial summary judgment (twice, if you count the motions for reconsideration), the plaintiffs in the federal class action ICWA/Due Process lawsuit have filed their brief requesting remedies.
The four Defendants in this action are largely ignoring this Court’s summary judgment ruling of March 30, 2015, Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik, 100 F. Supp. 3d 749 (D.S.D. 2015) (hereinafter “Oglala II”),1 in which the Court found that the Defen-dants were violating seven of Plaintiffs’ federal rights. Today, more than a year later, the Defendants continue to commit six of those violations, and only partially halted the seventh. As a result, more than one hundred additional Indian families have suffered the injuries Oglala II intended to prevent, and new families fall victim every week.
***
Mr. Hanna had previously written Judge Robert Mandel, the Seventh Judicial Circuit judge who heard most of the 48-hour hearings in 2015, to see if he would convene a meeting with Mr. Hanna and representatives from the States Attorney’s Office and Dakota Plains Legal Services to discuss how this Court’s summary judgment ruling could be implemented in the Seventh Circuit’s 48-hour hearings. Judge Mandel declined, and attached to his response a telling article entitled: “Federal law in the state courts: The freedom of state courts to ignore interpretations of federal law by lower federal courts.” (This correspondence and the article are attached as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2R). To Plaintiffs’ knowledge, in not one 48-hour hearing in 2015 did Judge Mandel incorporate the procedural protections this Court held in Oglala II are required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Federal Court Refuses to Enforce Western Sky Arbitration Provision
Yet another decision captioned Parnell v. CashCall/Western Sky Financial (N.D. Ga.):
54-1 Motion to Compel Arbitration
An excerpt:
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to enforce the delegation provision and the arbitration provision in the Parnell Loan Agreement. The arbitral forum is unavailable, and the provisions themselves are unconscionable. The Court therefore denies Defendant’s Motion to Compel.
Andrew Jackson Dumped from (Front of) $20 Bill in Favor of Harriet Tubman
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.