South Dakota Federal Court Enjoins Plaintiffs in Tribal Court Action to Enforce ERISA

Here are the materials in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Mundahl (D. S.D.):

Washington SCT Holds State ICWA’s Active Efforts Requirement Attaches Prior to Dependency Hearing

Here is the opinion in In re Dependency of C.J.J.I.:

Briefs (links to state court website):

South Dakota SCT Decides Quiet Title Action re: Fee Land within Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation

Here is the opinion in Hoffman v. Hollow Horn.

Federal Court Action Challenging Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Exclusion of Child Abusing Teachers

Here are the materials so far in Shaff v. Claymore (D.S.D.):

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Nygaard v. Taylor [Parental Kidnapping Protection Act]

Here:

Lower court materials here.

Eighth Circuit Dismisses South Dakota’s Appeal of the Mount Rushmore Fireworks Ban

Here is the opinion in Noem v. Haaland.

Briefs here and here.

South Dakota Federal Court Holds Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act Does Not Apply to Indian Tribes

Here are the materials in Nygaard v. Taylor (D.S.D.):

Eighth Circuit Affirms Drug Conviction arising on Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Ducheneaux.

Frank Pommersheim’s NAICJA Keynote

Frank Pommersheim asked us to post his keynote speech from this year’s NAICJA conference, “An Emeritus Prose Podcast: The Pandemic Checkpoints of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe: A Teaching Essay.”

Here it is:

The Pandemic Checkpoints of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

An excerpt:

In the Spring of 2020, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (CRST) began implementing a series of limited vehicle checkpoints within the boundaries of the reservation as part of its comprehensive public health response1 to limit the spread of COVID-19. One of the checkpoints was located on a state highway running through the Reservation. There was an immediate uproar in South Dakota. Many people, both Native and non-Native, contacted me and asked, ‘Frank, can the Tribe really do this?’ My answer was ‘yes.’
As the questions about this Tribal public health initiative became increasingly heated, the merits of the health policy were increasingly subsumed in political rhetoric concerning the ‘rights’ of non-Natives and the authority of the state to quash the Tribe’s efforts. The calls kept coming. My answer of ‘yes’ remained the same. Yet the supporting legal analysis was not so easily summarized. No (federal) statute or Supreme Court case unequivocally said yes or no. The answer of ‘yes’ required a careful exegesis of both Supreme Court precedent and the law of the CRST.

More Eighth Circuit Briefs in Noem v. Haaland

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe brief

CRST brief addendum/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Vance declaration

Briefs posted earlier are available here.