Here is the complaint in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Lacounte (D. Mont.):
Seminole Tribe v. Stranburg Cert Petition
Here:
Seminole Tribe v. Stranburg Cert Petition
Question presented:
Florida imposes a tax on gross receipts from utility services that are delivered to retail customers. Under express statutory authority, utility providers may separately itemize this utility tax on a customer’s bill and add it to the total charge for utility services. If the utility provider does so, the customer is legally required to remit the tax to the utility provider, which then transfers the payment to the State. Here, petitioner is a federally recognized Indian tribe that has purchased utility services delivered to tribal reservations. Petitioner’s utility providers have exercised their statutory right to separately itemize the utility tax when billing the Tribe for such services.
The question presented is:
When a utility provider exercises a state-law right to expressly pass on a utility tax to a federally recognized Indian tribe for utility services delivered to the tribe’s reservations and the tribe is therefore legally obligated to pay the tax, is the tax an impermissible
direct tax on the tribe?
Lower court materials here.
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Title VII Action against Florida Seminole
Here is the unpublished opinion in Longo v. Seminole Indian Casino-Immokalee.
Briefs are here.
President Obama on the Pending Supreme Court Nomination
Here.
An excerpt:
But I’m also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. There will be cases in which a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment. That’s why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.
Navajo Nation RFP for Contract Attorney
Download RFP here.
The Navajo Nation Department of Justice is requesting proposals from interested attorneys/firms to provide legal services to the Navajo Nation Office of the Controller, the Navajo Nation Investment Committee (the “Investment Committee”), and the Attorney General in connection with financial and corporate matters and applicable Navajo Nation laws and policies. Experience in the fields of Corporate, Finance, Real Estate, Tax and Navajo law is preferred. Demonstration of these qualifications should include a description of your firm’s depth of experience in these fields and the nature of legal services you have provided in these fields over time. Proposals must be received by email no later than 5:00 p.m. MST on Friday, March 4, 2016. No Late Proposals Will Be Accepted. Please send proposals and/or questions to: Lena Kee, Legal Secretary, at lkee@nndoj.org.
Federal Court Dismisses (Most of) Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona Trust Breach Claim [Updated 8/23/19]
Here are the materials in Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
[Tribal response sealed]
An excerpt:
Pending before the court is a motion filed by defendant the United States (“government”) to dismiss this action filed by plaintiff Inter–Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (“ITCA”) for breach of tribal trust obligations. The ITCA, which represents nineteen Arizona tribes,1 claims that the government is liable for a breach of trust by failing to fulfill its obligations under the Arizona–Idaho Conservation Act of 1988, Pub.L. No. 100–696, 102 Stat. 4571, 4577–93 (1988) (“the Act”); 25 U.S.C. § 162a; and the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103–412, 108 Stat. 4239 (1994)(“the Trust Fund Reform Act”).Title IV of the Act, which is sometimes referred to as the Arizona–Florida Land Exchange Act, ratified an agreement between the government and the Barron Collier Company, Collier Development Corporation, and Collier Enterprises (together “Collier”) to exchange federally owned property in Arizona for wetlands in Florida owned by Collier. Compl. ¶ 57. The ITCA alleges that under the Act the government is required to make payments into a trust that was established for the benefit of the ITCA’s member tribes and for ensuring a lump sum payment to the ITCA’s trust fund at the end of a 30–year payment period. Under the Act, the trust was held by the government and maintained by annual payments from Collier. Under the terms of the trust agreement, Collier was also obligated to pay into an annuity fund designed to ensure a lump sum payment at the end of 30 years. The trust agreement gave the government a security interest in land owned by Collier as collateral on the 30–year payment obligation.
Collier stopped making payments into the trust and into the annuity fund in 2012. The ITCA alleges that the government has breached its trust obligations by failing to make the payments itself when Collier stopped paying. The ITCA also charges that the government is liable for breach of trust by allowing a private bank, rather than the government, to hold the annuity and by failing to make payments into the annuity fund when Collier stopped paying. The ITCA also claims that the government breached its trust responsibility by failing to properly maintain collateral intended to ensure a full payment at the end of the 30–year period. Finally, the ITCA claims that the government breached its trust obligations by failing to prudently invest the trust funds and by failing to provide a proper accounting of the funds.The government has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the government does not have any obligation under the Act to make up Collier’s missed payments to either the trust fund or the annuity. The government further argues that it has no trust obligation under the Act to monitor or supplement the value of the collateral or security obtained from Collier. In this connection, the government also argues that to the extent the ITCA’s breach of trust claims relate to the release of collateral more than 6 years ago, this portion of the claim is barred by the 6–year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2501. In addition, the government asserts that the ITCA’s claims with regard to the collateral are not ripe because the government is in ongoing litigation against Collier in United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“the district court”) to resolve the collateral issues. The government further argues that the ITCA has failed to state a claim with regard to the government’s management of the trust fund. The government states that the Act gave the government unreviewable discretion in making investment decisions and that there is no allegation of facts to show mismanagement. Finally, the government asserts that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the ITCA’s claim for an accounting on the grounds that the ITCA cannot establish a claim for money damages based on management of the trust fund. In such circumstances, the government argues that the ITCA must go to the district court for an accounting. Based on these arguments, the government asks the court to dismiss the ITCA’s claims for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) and for failure to state a claim pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6).For the reasons below, the court agrees with the government that this court does not have jurisdiction over the ITCA’s claims based on the government’s failure to make up Collier’s missed payments. These claims fail for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the ITCA has not established a fiduciary obligation to make the payments under the Act and thus the ITCA has failed to establish a money-mandating breach of trust claim.
However, the court finds that the ITCA has identified potential money-mandating breach of trust claims with regard to the government’s alleged failure to monitor and maintain adequate collateral to ensure the final payment into the fund. Yet, a portion of the collateral-related claims may be barred by the 6–year statute of limitations. Thus, the court finds that a final decision on its jurisdiction to hear those claims must await a determination of the merits. See Oswalt v. United States, 41 F. App’x 471, 472 (Fed.Cir.2002) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1350, at 237 (2d ed.1990)). In addition, the court finds that the ITCA has failed to state a claim to the extent that it argues the government breached its trust obligations by failing to hold the trust fund payments security in trust at the Department of Treasury rather than in a private annuity and certain interests in real property.
Update (8/23/19):
D.C. Circuit Briefs in Patchak v. Jewell
Press Release: National Wildlife Federation Notice of Intent to Sue
National Wildlife Federation to Sue Pipeline Safety Administration to Protect Communities, Wildlife from Oil Spill in the Great Lakes
ANN ABOR, MICH. (February 22, 2016)—The National Wildlife Federation today officially sent a notice of intent to sue the federal agency largely responsible for overseeing oil pipeline safety. The notice asserts that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) had no authority to authorize the transport of oil through pipelines that run through the Straits of Mackinac and navigable waters in Michigan’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas. PHMSA also incorrectly authorized the transport of oil through pipelines on land without assessing the impacts on the environment, fish, and wildlife, including the impacts on endangered and threatened species, such as the Piping Plover and Kirtland’s Warbler.
The National Wildlife Federation is asking PHMSA to comply with the law within 60 days by fully assessing and publicly disclosing the environmental impacts of the terrestrial sections of the controversial pipelines, known as Line 5, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Wildlife Federation is further asking PHMSA to revoke its approval of oil spill response plans for the sections of Line 5 where it runs beneath the Straits of Mackinac and other navigable waters in Michigan’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas on its pathway from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario.
The legal action is the latest effort by conservation groups, businesses, and communities to protect the state’s environment and economy from another oil spill disaster. Enbridge Energy, the company which operates Line 5, is responsible for the 2010 oil disaster near Marshall, Mich., which dumped more than 800,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River. That catastrophe remains the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history.
“We are taking action today to help protect people, communities, wildlife, and the Great Lakes from an oil disaster,” said Mike Shriberg, the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes regional executive director. “Michigan is home to the largest inland oil disaster in U.S. history, and we need to make sure that we never experience that again.”
Read the National Wildlife Federation’s Notice of Intent to Sue at: http://bit.ly/24mrSQ8
By law, pipeline operators can transport oil only if they have oil spill response plans that are approved by the authorized federal official or agency. PHMSA violated several laws in approving Enbridge Energy’s oil spill response plans for Line 5 including:
- The National Environmental Policy Act, which requires PHMSA to assess impacts on the environment, including shorelines, beaches, fish, and wildlife. The agency failed to conduct an environmental impact assessment.
- The Endangered Species Act, which mandates that PHMSA assess impacts on endangered or threatened fish and wildlife. The agency failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing impacts to these species.
- The Oil Pollution Act, because PHMSA lacked the authority to approve oil spill response plans for sections of Line 5 where it runs through the Straits of Mackinac and other navigable waters in Michigan’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, only the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation is authorized to approve oil spill response plans for pipelines running in, on, or under inland navigable waters—not PHMSA.
“An oil spill, and a worst-case discharge of oil in particular, may significantly harm if not destroy the unique cultural and natural resources in the shadow of Line 5,” the National Wildlife Federation’s filing states. “So, too, a spill may significantly impact or destroy the bountiful fish and wildlife, as well as the recreation and tourism the ecological resources in the area support.”
Colorado River Indian Tribes Deputy Attorney General Posting
Download announcement here.
BIA Launches New Summer Internship Program for Native Students
Acting Assistant Secretary Roberts Announces Launch of the Indian Affairs
2016 Student Leadership Summer Institute for Native Students
Summer Institute builds on President’s Generation Indigenous commitment to remove barriers to opportunities for success for Indian Country’s future leaders
WASHINGTON – As part of President Obama’s Generation Indigenous (“Gen-I”) initiative to remove barriers to success for Native Youth,Acting Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Lawrence S. Roberts today announced the launch of the 2016 Indian Affairs Student Leadership Summer Institute, a paid 10-week summer internship program with the agency that begins in early June. The Institute will provide American Indian and Alaska Native post-secondary students with a unique opportunity to learn about federal policymaking and develop management and leadership skills within high-profile offices throughout the Indian Affairs organization. Roberts made the announcement at the National Congress of American Indians’ “Tribal Nations Legislative Summit 114th Congress Executive Council” meeting.
“Indian Affairs is excited to offer the Indian Affairs Student Leadership Summer Institute, which will provide opportunities for Native students to gain experience and leadership skills to help serve Indian Country,” Acting Assistant Secretary Roberts said. “Under the President’s Gen-I initiative we are privileged to provide learning opportunities for the next generation of Native leaders, and believe that this program is a chance to help our young people gain valuable experience that will serve them well throughout the rest of their careers.”
The Indian Affairs Student Leadership Summer Institute’s mission is to engage and support the next generation of Native students interested in rising to leadership levels within federal government. The program will provide participants with:
- An introduction to the government-to-government relationship between the United States and the 567 federally recognized tribal nations;
- An understanding of how the federal government carries out its trust responsibilities to tribal and individual Indian trust beneficiaries;
- How the tribal consultation process guides the development and implementation of federal Indian policies and regulations;
- Real-world exposure to the Indian Affairs organization and its component bureaus, offices and programs that carry out its part of the Secretary of the Interior’s overall responsibilities to Indian Country.
The Institute is open to American Indian and Alaska Native students currently enrolled in undergraduate or graduate degree programs. Between 15-to-20 students will be selected to work at either Indian Affairs’ headquarters offices in Washington, D.C., or at the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) 12 regional offices. Internships will begin in early June and end mid- August.
Application and Eligibility Requirements
I. To be eligible for the 2016 Indian Affairs Student Leadership Summer Institute, an applicant must:
- Be a member of a federally recognized tribe.
- Be currently enrolled and in good standing in an undergraduate or graduate degree program.
- Be at least 18 years of age.
- Have completed at least two years of an undergraduate degree program.
II. Applications must include the following requirements:
- Personal Statement (700-word limit): The statement should discuss the applicant’s interest in the Indian Affairs Student Leadership Summer Institute and how it fits into his or her future goals of serving Indian Country. It should also describe the applicant’s personal qualities or previous leadership experiences that will enhance the experience of other American Indian and Alaska Native program participants and an area of her or his education, experience in a certain field of policy, cultural background/familiarity (close ties to region) or any other information that would help determine the applicant’s proper placement or secure a placement preference within a specific Indian Affairs office.
- Resume: A one-page resume is preferred, but must be no more than two pages in length. It must list the following: education, honors and awards, work experience (including other internships), school activities (e.g., clubs, research, presentations), and/or any community activities (e.g., volunteer activities, leadership roles).
- Indian Preference Verification Form BIA-4432: Because preference in filling vacancies within Indian Affairs offices is given to qualified Indian candidates in accordance with the Indian Preference Act of 1934 (Title 25, USC, Section 472), an applicant must include Verification Form BIA-4432 with their application package prior to the closing date of the announcement, but only if claiming Indian Preference on the application. Applicants selected under Indian Preference will be appointed under Excepted Service, Schedule A 213.3112 (a) (7) appointing authority. For the form, go to http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xbie/documents/text/idc015515.pdf.
- Transcripts: A full set of unofficial transcripts must be submitted at the time of application. They will be used to evaluate the level for which an applicant qualifies, which then will determine the grade level and salary offered.
While applications will begin to be accepted on Monday, February 29, 2016, through the federal employment opportunities website www.USAJobs.gov, they are due by 11:59 p.m. EST on Friday, March 11, 2016. Questions about the Indian Affairs Student Leadership Summer Institute program, eligibility, how to apply, and application requirements may be sent to IA_Institute@bia.gov.
Indian Affairs’ responsibility to the federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes is rooted in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and subsequently defined in treaties, acts of Congress, executive orders and actions, federal court decisions, and federal policies and regulations.
The Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs supports the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out the Department’s responsibilities to the federally recognized tribes through BIA and BIE programs and services. The BIA’s mission includes developing and protecting Indian trust lands and natural and energy resources; supporting social welfare, public safety and justice in tribal communities; and promoting tribal self-determination and self-governance. For more information, visit www.indianaffairs.gov.
The BIE implements federal Indian education programs and funds 183 elementary and secondary day and boarding schools (of which two-thirds are tribally operated) located on 64 reservations in 23 states and peripheral dormitories serving over 40,000 students. BIE also operates two post-secondary schools, and administers grants for 28 tribally controlled colleges and universities and two tribal technical colleges, and provides higher education scholarships to Native youth. For more information, visit www.bie.edu.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.