News coverage here.
Related news: “Area Cherokee in Violation of Indian Removal of 1830.”
News coverage here.
Related news: “Area Cherokee in Violation of Indian Removal of 1830.”
Here:
Download(PDF): IHS-Indian Affairs joint news release
Excerpt:
“In keeping with President Obama’s Generation Indigenous initiative to improve opportunities for Native youth and the BIA’s Tiwahe initiative to strengthen Native families, this interagency agreement will enable the BIA and BIE to work collaboratively with IHS to bring much-needed behavioral health resources to Native youth,” said Lawrence S. “Larry” Roberts, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Wolfname.
Tomorrow is the second of two Tribal consultation sessions to provide a forum to share insights and make recommendations related to the probate of Indian estates. Specifically, three areas have been identified for modification which would have an immediate impact in streamlining the probate process. Additional information on these potential areas is provided in the following PowerPoint: Draft Probation Revisions Presentation.
The consultation information:
The Department will also be hosting a listening session on Monday, June 27th, 2016 in Spokane, Washington, in conjunction with the National Congress of American Indians mid-year conference.
Written comments must be received by August 1, 2016. Methods for submitting comments include via email: consultation@bia.gov; or via hard copy to:
Ms. Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, MS-3071-MIB, Washington, DC 20240.
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.
Instructions for FY 2017 CPS Applications
Applications due May 15, 2016.
Here are the materials in Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Black (S.D. Cal.):
34-1 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Motion
43 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Reply
EWI Protect Our Communities Order Granting Motion for Judgment on Pleadings_3-29-16
An excerpt:
This case concerns the construction of the second phase of an industrial-scale wind farm and the well-being of eagles who nest in or pass through the same general area. More particularly, Plaintiffs, with the noble goal of protecting these eagles, challenge a federal agency’s approval of the project despite its potential to harm eagles. The issue in this case and for these Motions is not whether the agency and those involved in building the wind farm may simply disregard the eagles’ well-being. Harming or killing eagles is a serious offense that subjects offenders to civil fines, criminal fines, and even imprisonment. That is not in dispute. Rather, the question in this case and for these Motions is whether the agency that Plaintiffs sued—BIA—was obligated to take further steps to protect these birds under federal law. Because BIA did not have a legal obligation to proactively ensure that Tule would not violate other federal laws and because, after BIA issued its decision, there was no remaining major federal administrative agency action that would require supplemental environmental analysis, the Court GRANTS Tule’s, the Tribe’s, and BIA’s Motions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.