Chickasaw Nation

Unpublished Active Efforts Case Out of California

Kate Fort

Here. Whether the state has the obligation to assist in enrolling dad and child at in the Chickasaw Nation as an active efforts requirement. The California Rules of Court include that in their definition of active efforts:

We note that the California Supreme Court is currently reviewing the validity of California Rules of Court, rules 5.482(c) and 5.484(c) in In re Abbigail A. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1450, review granted September 10, 2014, S220187. However, briefing and decision of the issue in this court and further potential review in the Supreme Court would significantly delay this matter, while stipulated reversal with directions will benefit R.P.’s interests more expeditiously. (In re Rashad H., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 380.)
Reversal is therefore appropriate given DPSS’s and the juvenile court’s failure to make active efforts to secure tribal membership for R.P. Although only mother appealed, the parental rights termination order must be reversed as to both mother and father. (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 208.)

NYTs Article on Chickasaw Member Running for US Senate

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Saginaw Chippewa v. NLRB Sixth Circuit Briefing Complete

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Saginaw – NLRB – Brief filed on 12-6-13

NLRB Brief (SCIT)

Chickasaw Nation Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

American Indian Law Scholars Amicus Brief 

Ute Mountain Ute Amicus Curiae Brief

Saginaw Chippewa Reply Brief

 

NLRB Brief in Saginaw Chippewa Sixth Circuit Matter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

NLRB Brief (SCIT)

Opening brief is here. Amicus briefs are here.

Sixth Circuit Amicus Briefs in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. NLRB

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Chickasaw Nation Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

American Indian Law Scholars Amicus Brief 

Ute Mountain Ute Amicus Curiae Brief

SCIT’s opening brief is here.

California COA Decides ICWA Placement Preferences Matter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion (Cal. App.):

In re Autumn K

An excerpt:

This appeal challenges an order terminating the parental rights of mother Patricia M. and father Bryan K. to their daughter Autumn K. and placing the child for adoption. Because Autumn was of Chickasaw descent and thus an Indian child, the dependency proceeding fell within the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. section 1901, et seq. (ICWA). As such, there were particular substantive requirements with which the juvenile court was obligated to comply when selecting a permanent plan for Autumn. Most significantly, absent good cause to deviate from this requirement, ICWA obligated the court to place Autumn with a member of her extended family, a member of her tribe, or another Indian family. (25 U.S.C. § 1915.) Here, there were two potentially viable, ICWA-compliant placements: maternal grandmother Teresa, who had custody of Autumn’s six siblings and had sought placement of Autumn from the outset of the dependency case, and maternal aunt Beatrice. Despite that, the court, relying on a conclusion by respondent Del Norte County Health and Social Services Department (Department) that Autumn could not be placed in her grandparents’ home, placed Autumn in a non-Indian home with a distant relative.

On appeal, the parents contend the juvenile court erred for a multitude of reasons. We agree with one argument that necessitates reversal: the Department erred in determining maternal grandfather José had a nonexemptible criminal conviction such that Autumn could not be placed with her grandparents. We conclude two different statutory provisions instructed that the conviction was in fact exemptible, and the Department was thus obligated to evaluate the request for an exemption on its merits. We therefore reverse.

Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations SCT Amicus Brief in Tarrant Regional Water District v. Hermann

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Chickasaw and Choctaw Amicus in 11-889

The SCOTUSblog page on this case is here.

 

Update on NLRB v. Tribal Casino Cases (from Kaighn Smith at DWM)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Normally, we don’t post these kinds of updates from law firms, but this is so well done and has links to primary documents we crave (see bolded text under the fold), so here goes:

Three recent unfair labor practice cases leveled against Indian nation casinos by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have gone in three different directions.  There may be ominous implications.

First, there was the complaint against the WinStar World Casino, owned and operated by the Chickasaw Nation, filed before the NLRB’s Regional Office in Oklahoma.  The NLRB charged casino managers with violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by disciplining employees who engaged in union organizing activities.  The Chickasaw Nation sued the NLRB in federal court and secured an injunction to stop the case on the ground that the NLRB has no jurisdiction over labor relations within the Chickasaw Nation’s territory.  The NLRB has appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  It argues that federal courts have no authority to stop an NLRB unfair labor practice case until after the case has proceeded to final decision by the full Board.  (Under a provision of the NLRA, parties can appeal final Board decisions to the federal courts of appeals.)

Second, there was the complaint against the Soaring Eagle Casino, owned and operated by the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, filed before the NLRB’s Regional Office in Michigan.   In that case, the NLRB charged the casino with violating the NLRA when it fired an employee for soliciting union support in violation of the casino’s non-solicitation policy.   The Tribe sued the NLRB in federal court just like the Chickasaw Nation.  This time, however, the federal court declined to hear the case.  It said the Tribe needed to make all of its arguments to the Board before proceeding to federal court.  The unfair labor practice case then went to hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and the casino lost.  The ALJ ordered the casino to reinstate the employee and pay her back wages.  The ALJ also ordered the casino to post notices to employees announcing their rights under the NLRA, stating that it had violated the NLRA, and announcing that it would revoke its non-solicitation policy.  The casino has now appealed the ALJ’s decision to the full Board in Washington, D.C.  It argues that the NLRB has no jurisdiction over employment relations at its casino.

Third, there was the complaint against the Fort McDowell Casino, owned and operated by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation.  In that case, filed before the NLRB’s Regional Office in Arizona last February, the NLRB claimed that the casino maintained work rules that infringed on the ability of employees to engage in concerted activity in violation of the NLRA.  Before the case proceeded to hearing before the ALJ, the casino settled with the NLRB.  Under the settlement agreement on file with the NLRB’s Regional Office, the casino must post the following notice:

Continue reading →

BLT: Indian-Owned Bank Amongst Five to Hold Keepseagle Settlement Funds

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the BLT:

The plaintiffs’ lawyers overseeing the $750 million settlement in a discrimination suit brought by Native American farmers and ranchers proposed using five banks in which to deposit and invest settlement funds until the money is disbursed to class members.

Four banks—Bank of America Corporation, Wells Fargo & Company, Citigroup, Inc. and PNC Financial Services—would each receive about $150 million from the compensation fund payment to invest, the plaintiffs’ lawyers in Keepseagle v. Vilsack said in a court filing (PDF) April 22 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In addition, a fifth bank, Bank2 of Oklahoma, would receive about $18 million to hold. The plaintiffs’ team, led by Joseph Sellers of Washington’s Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, said Bank2 is owned by the Chickasaw Nation and is the largest mortgage lender to Native Americans. Sellers said the plaintiffs’ team sought out a Native American-owned bank to reinforce the settlement’s connection with the Indian community. The United States Department of Agriculture helped research the identification of a bank.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said in an order today that he wants the plaintiffs’ lawyers to discuss the bank selection process at a hearing Tuesday. The lawyers are meeting with Sullivan to go over a dispute about attorneys’ fees and costs. The judge asked the lawyers to come prepared to discuss, among other things, “the credentials” of the selected banks.

One hopes the Chickasaw-owned bank isn’t worrying the judge….

NARF’s 40th Anniversary Conference

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From NARF:

Friday, October 29, 2010 – Saturday, October 30, 2010

Location: Chickasaw Nation’s WinStar World Casino

Address:
Exit 1, Interstate 35
Thackerville, OK 73459 

NARF- 40 YEARS of INDIAN LAW FORUM
Friday, October 29, 2010
8:30 AM-4:30 PM

This forum will highlight four decades of Indian law and NARF’s role. We will examine current concerns and challenges within each of NARF’s priority areas and their impact on Indian law. Utilizing the tribal leaders and attorneys attending, in each priority area we will craft a shared vision for the future direction for that issue of Indian law. Each session will end with strategic outlines for how NARF can address each issue for the next 40 years.