Two rival factions of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe have been duking it out in federal court. One band sought a TRO preventing the enforcement of a BIA decision to recognize the other, but the Eastern District of California denied the motion on Dec. 23, on the grounds that adequate remedies at law remain, including administrative remedies. Here are the materials:
timbisha-v-kempthorne-complaint [includes BIA materials]
motion for TRO [includes Timbisha tribal constitution]
This case, decided in April and reported here (see opinion and materials), is in the D.C. district court. Now the question is whether the plaintiffs, who prevailed in April, are entitled to a preliminary injunction demanding the Secretary comply with the order the way the plaintiffs want, or whether the Secretary can comply in his or her own manner. The court denied the union’s motion.
ief-motion-for-preliminary-injunction
On remand in Nulankeyutmonen Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson, the district court held that the case should be remanded to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for administrative review. This case concerns a challenge to a BIA lease granted on/near Indian lands in Maine for a liquified natural gas plant.
opposition-to-renewed-motion-to-dismiss
Earlier opinions:
Here is the cert petition in Lawrence v. United States DOI. Here is the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.
And here are the questions presented, from the cert petition:
1. Can the Department of Interior ignore the imperative of the Indian Preference Act (25 USC § 47.2) by “blindly” applying civil service regulations [5 USC § 831.906(b)], which effectively deprives Indian firefighters on Indian Reservations of the enhanced retirement benefits [5 USC § 8336(c)(1)] to which they may otherwise be entitled.
2. Whether the Secretary of Interior can, by failing to adopt any standards by which the BIA could identify Indian employees as firefighters, thereby exclude the majority of Indian civil service firefighters on Indian Reservations from timely filing for previous years credits toward their enhanced retirement benefits. [ Preston v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1984)]
3. Whether the trial, court erred in ruling that evidence of few BIA Indian firefighter employees applying for enhanced retirement benefits, when, in fact, the BIA employs a majority of Indian firefighters, did not satisfy a prima facie showing of disparate impact.
Here is the district court opinion in Brurud v. Eastern Oklahoma Regional Director, BIA, affirming a fine against a user of a BIA road — nd-okla-dct-opinion
From the opinion:
This appeal stems from a disagreement regarding the repair and maintenance of a road in Osage County. The petitioner Clark L. Brurud (“Brurud”), through his oil company Stockbridge Energy, LLC, operates oil wells on the property where the road is located.
***
The Superintendent sent a letter to Brurud on August 2, 2001, ordering him “to completely repair all roads used by [Brurud and his] staff. . . before August 10, 2001” and “to keep all [the] roads in good repair.” The Superintendent issued another letter on August 10, 2001, stating that Brurud had “made many improvements” to the roads but “still failed to repair a section of the road.” Because Brurud did not comply with the Superintendent’s orders, he was assessed a fine on August 10, 2001 of $ 25.00 per day until he completed the work. The Superintendent stated that he would consider increasing the fine if the work was not finished by August 17, 2001. The Superintendent classified the fine as a penalty permitted by 25 C.F.R. § 226.42 and notified Brurud that the decision was appealable to the Regional Director in accordance with 25 C.F.R. § 2.
Here are the briefs:
And here is the IBIA decision being appealed.
From the Senate Indian Affairs Committee website:
THE HONORABLE CARL J. ARTMAN
Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, DC
THE HONORABLE ROBERT CHICKS
Mid-West Area Vice President, National Congress of American Indians; President, Stockbridge Munsee Band of Mohican Indians
Bowler, WI
THE HONORABLE GARY SVANDA
Council Member, City of Madera
Madera, CA
MR. DOUG NASH
Director, of Indian Estate Planning and Probating, Institute of Indian Estate Planning and Probate
Seattle, WA
The 2008 list of federally recognized tribes is here: Federal Register Notice
More coverage from the Kalamazoo Gazette and the Muskegon Chronicle. The Chronicle’s coverage denotes significant skepticism:
The standing-room-only crowd at the casino presentation by the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians left Muskegon City Hall on Monday night wondering whether the western Upper Peninsula tribe’s proposal was realistic.
From Indianz:
The Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians is seeking an off-reservation casino in Muskegon, Michigan.
Paul Spruhan, a clerk for the Navajo Nation Supreme Court, has posted “Indian as Race/Indian as Political Status: Implementation of the Half-Blood Requirement under the Indian Reorganization Act, 1934-1945” on SSRN. This paper was published in the Rutgers Race and the Law Review.
Here’s the abstract:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.