Little River Ottawa Seeking In-House Counsel
Here:
Response to Media Dustup in California ICWA Case
NICWA’s statement:
We are disturbed by this weekend’s flurry of negative media attention regarding the attempted reunification of a child with her family in Utah. In this contentious custody case, there have never been any surprises as far as what the law required. The foster family was well aware years ago this girl is an Indian child, whose case is subject to the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and who has relatives who were willing to raise her if reunification with her father was unsuccessful.In fact, the only surprising turn of events is the lengths the foster family has gone to, under the advice of an attorney with a long history of trying to overturn ICWA, to drag out litigation as long as possible, creating instability for the child in question. That the foster family now argues bonding and attachment should supersede all else despite testimony of those closest to her case, seems like a long-term, calculated legal strategy based on the simple fact that the law was always clear, they understood it, but just chose not to abide by it.The purpose of foster care is to provide temporary care for children while families get services and support to reunite with their children, not to fast-track the creation of new families when there is extended family available who want to care for the child. The temporary nature of these relationships is also the reason we view those who serve as foster parents as selfless and nurturing individuals. Reunification and placement with extended family whenever possible is best practice for all children, not just Native American children.We call on the media to provide balanced reporting and to ask vital questions regarding these facts before inflaming the public and subjecting the privacy and future well-being of a little girl to national debate.
Our previous coverage of the appeal of this case is here.
As always, we remain concerned with the lack of privacy for a child who doesn’t get to make decisions about her identity being put forward into the press. In perhaps no surprise to anyone, this case involves repeat players from the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl case.
D.C. Circuit Oral Argument Audio in Grand Ronde v. Jewell (Cowlitz)
Lawrence R. Baca Lifetime Achievement Awardees Announced
The FBA Indian Law Section’s Lawrence R. Baca Lifetime Achievement Awardees have been announced. There are co-awardees this year: Prof. Charles Wilkinson and the late Prof. Bill Rice.
SCOTUS Denies Cert in Ute Reservation Jurisdiction Cases
Here is today’s order. The Court denied cert in Wasatch County v. Ute Indian Tribe (petition here) and Uintah County v. Ute Indian Tribe.
Koenig!
California v. Pauma Band Cert Petition
Here is the petition in California v. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation:
Question presented:
In Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), this Court held that a waiver of state sovereign immunity must be “stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implication from the text as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’” Id. at 673 (alteration omitted). This case concerns a gaming compact between the State of California and the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation. Both parties waived their sovereign immunity from suits arising under the compact, but only to the extent that “[n]either side makes any claim for monetary damages (that is, only injunctive, specific performance, including enforcement of a provision of this Compact requiring payment of money to one or another of the parties, or declaratory relief is sought) . . . .” App. 28a. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit held that this limited waiver, which also appears in gaming compacts between California and 57 other tribes, waived the State’s immunity with respect to an award of $36.2 million in restitution.
The question presented is: Whether, under Edelman, the language of the limited waiver—which expressly excludes claims for “monetary damages” and references only injunctive relief, specific performance, and declaratory relief— waived the State’s sovereign immunity with respect to the district court’s monetary award.
United South and Eastern Tribes Amicus Brief in Support of the Tribal Petitioners against NLRB
Here is the USET brief in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. NLRB:
USET Amicus in Support of Tribal Petitions
This one is substantially the same as USET’s brief in the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government v. NLRB case.
Kevin Washburn on Recurring Issues in Indian Gaming Compact Approval
Kevin Washburn has posted “Recurring Issues in Indian Gaming Compact Approval” on SSRN. The paper is forthcoming in Gaming Law and Economics.
The abstract:
As tribal-state gaming compact negotiations under IGRA have become more complex and ratification in state and tribal legislative bodies has become more political, state and tribal negotiators sometimes lose sight of important interests protected by IGRA through the Secretary of the Interior’s review authority. IGRA is fairly clear about the terms parties may and may not negotiate in compacts and Interior has begun to enforce IGRA more and more rigorously in the review process. To minimize the risk of disapproval, state and tribal negotiators are wise to consider several issues that are likely to raise concerns among federal reviewers. This essay surveys some of the more common issues that continue to arise in compact negotiations.
On another, unrelated note, Professor Washburn’s photography skills were in fine form this last weekend.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.