Here:
16-498 bsac Fed. Cts. and Indian Law Scholars
Background materials here.
amicus brief
CNIGA Amicus Brief in Saginaw Chippewa v. NLRB
Here:
DOJ Motion for Summary Judgment and National Orgs Amicus Brief Filed in Guidelines Litigation
Latest filings in Nat’l Council for Adoption v. Jewell:
DOJ Memorandum for Summary Judgment
A favorite footnote (5 is good too):
10 Finally, BAF does not elaborate as to why placement with an Indian child’s family or tribe could not also be “loving,” and its silence is telling. ICWA was designed as a remedy for precisely this type of bias: the stereotype held by some child-welfare advocates that Indian children will be better off placed with a non-Indian family. See Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 37 (reiterating that Congress feared that application of a “white, middleclass standard” will, “in many cases, foreclose[] placement with [an] Indian family”). BAF’s misguided view is, at best, an “abstract concern” that is insufficient to create standing. See Lane, 703 F.3d at 675 (citing Simon, 426 U.S. at 40).
National Organizations (NCAI, NICWA, AAIA) Amicus Brief in Support
Update in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri
Here are the new materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):
60-1 Jamul Action Committee Motion for PI
62 Tribal Opposition to Motion for PI
63 NIGC Opposition to Motion for PI
67 Jamul Action Committee Reply
75-1 Rosales & Toggery Motion to File Amicus
75-2 Rosales & Toggery Amicus Brief
National Intertribal Tax Alliance Amicus Materials in Agua Caliente v. Riverside County (Part 162 Leasing Regs)
From NITA:
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County, et al, 5:14-cv-00007-DMG-DBT (United States District Court, Central District of California). The Aqua Caliente Tribe filed this civil action against Riverside County to stop the collection of taxes on Indian land leaseholders. The Desert Water Agency intervened in this action. Riverside County collects possessory interest taxes from Indian land leaseholders and then redistributes much of the money to cities, schools and other local governments. The Tribe has long viewed as this tax as illegal and views these possessory interest taxes as an unlawful infringement on Tribal sovereignty rights. The action was filed January 2, 2014 and is set for trial on June 16, 2015.
Here are the materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County (C.D. Cal.):
NITA_Request_to_File_Amicus_and_Brief
Opposition_to_File_Amicus_Desert_Water
Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik Briefing Complete
Here:
Brief in Support of First Motion (July 2014)
Statement of Undisputed Facts (First Motion)
Due Process Motion (Second PSJ)
Exhibit 1 (Hearing Transcripts) 502 pp
Exhibit 2 (Custody Orders) 113 pp.
Exhibit 7 (ICWA Affidavits) 145 pages
Exhibit 8 (Petitions for Temp Custody) 7 pages
128 Defendants Response to 1922 Motion
State Judges Respond to Oglala Sioux Tribe Motions for Summary Judgment
Here are the new materials in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik (D.S.D.):
128 Defendants Response to 1922 Motion
129 Defendants Response to Due Process Motion
The motions for summary judgment are here.
The evidentiary exhibits are here.
The DOJ amicus brief is here.
DOJ Amicus Brief in SD ICWA Class Action Case
The United States came in strongly on the side of the tribes and tribal families for both the enforcement of ICWA and meaningful due process.
Here.
Thus, from the very start of an emergency removal, Section 1922 requires state courts, agencies, and officials to actively investigate and evaluate whether the emergency situation has ended. Given the statutory requirements for oversight and “immediate” action, this ongoing obligation cannot be deferred for weeks or months until the next scheduled hearing occurs.
***
The interest that parents have in the custody of their children is not to be lightly interfered with, even following an emergency situation. While an emergency proceeding such as the 48- hour hearing may not permanently deprive parents of their custody rights, even a temporary deprivation of physical custody requires a prompt and meaningful hearing.
Memorandum in support of leave to file amicus here.
Motion for Leave to File here.
Update — The court granted the motion the next day:
123 DCT Order Granting US Motion
Previous coverage here.
Turtle Talk Guide to the Amici Supporting Respondents in Baby Veronica Case (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl)
Indian tribes, individuals, law clinics, bar associations, and other entities inundated the Supreme Court with amicus briefs in the Baby Veronica case. Here is our guide to the amici (we’ve highlighted the must-read briefs in red):
The United States:
Here.
As always, the most important brief.
The State AGs Brief:
The AGs’ brief may also be the most important amicus brief, in that 18 state attorneys general signed on to a brief drafted and distributed by the Arizona AG. No state AG filed an amicus brief supporting petitioners. While the contents of the brief are important (they attack the existing Indian family exception (EIF) and provide a defense against the federalism attack on ICWA), the mere fact of the brief is very powerful. The Minnesota DHS brief is along the same lines.
The Strategic Briefs:
12-399 bsac Association on American Indian Affairs (aka the NCAI brief)
12-399 Professors of Indian Law Amicus (the legal history brief)
12-399 bsac Seminole Tribe of Florida et al (the constitutionality brief)
These three briefs form the cornerstone of the amicus strategy. As usual, the NCAI brief offers greater national context for the dispute in issue, offering legislative history and even some sociological history. The law profs brief, IMHO the best law profs brief ever filed in the Indian cases before the Supreme Court, is the legal history of ICWA, written by one of the very best legal historians out there, Stuart Banner, former SOC clerk. The constitutionality brief defends against the farthest-reaching attacks of some of the petitioners, that ICWA is unconstitutional. It focuses on the doctrine we call the political status doctrine, first articulated by the Supreme Court in Morton v. Mancari.
Briefs Authored by Supreme Court Specialists:
12-399 bsac CaseyFamilyPrograms (Patricia Millett)
12-399 bsac CurrentandFormerMembersofCongress (Kathleen Sullivan)
12-399 bsac Adult Pre-ICWA Indian Adoptees (Ed DuMont)
It’s unfair to characterize these briefs solely as briefs authored by Supreme Court specialists, but names mean a great deal to clerks when slogging through a very large pile of amicus briefs. The Millett brief may be critically important, given that so many adoption and children’s organizations signed on, responding in force to the petitioners’ adoption policy positions.
Social Science Brief:
12-399 bsac Nat’l Lat Psych Assoc
I guess the closest thing we have to a Brandeis brief in this case. Could be critical, especially since the social science that persuaded Congress to adopt ICWA in 1978 has not aged all that well. Also, it responds directly to the junk science on attachment theory Mark Fiddler keeps pitching. Continue reading
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.