Ninth Circuit Materials in Slockish v. FHA


Opening Brief

Indian Law Scholars Amicus Brief

Religious Groups Amicus Briefs

Religious Liberty Scholars Amicus Brief

Federal Answer Brief


Lower court materials here.


Portland Bridge to be Named Tilikum Crossing

Two news articles here:

Portland Transit Bridge Will Be Called ‘Tilikum Crossing’

Tilikum Crossing or TilixƏm Crossing? Why Portland’s new bridge name doesn’t have traditional native spelling (video)

Subcommittee Hearing Today 2pm ET on Three House Resolutions

Information here

  • H.R. 726 (Schrader), To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to make technical corrections, and for other purposes.
  • H.R. 3319 (Grijalva), To allow the Pascua Yaqui Tribe to determine the requirements for membership in that tribe.
  • H.R. 6141 (Schrader), To provide for the addition of certain real property to the reservation of the Siletz Tribe in the State of Oregon.


Panel I

Director Michael Black (H.R. 726, H.R. 3319 and H.R. 6141) Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of the Interior

Panel II

Vice-Chairman Reyn Leno (H.R. 726 and H.R. 6141) Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Grand Ronde, Oregon

Chair Delores Pigsley (H.R. 726 and H.R. 6141) Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon Siletz, Oregon

Chairman Robert Garcia (H.R. 6141) Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Coos Bay, Oregon

Commissioner Terry Thompson (H.R. 6141) Lincoln County Newport, Oregon

Chairman Peter Yucupicio (H.R. 3319) Pascua Yaqui Tribe Tucson, Arizona

News Article about Rising Tribal Enrollment Numbers (Excluding the Disenrollment Tribes, of course)

Here, via Pechanga.

Good news:

The swelling membership of the Tulalip Tribes, based near Everett, Washington, for example, is a point of pride for tribal member and state representative John McCoy, who believes improved health care and an above-average birth rate are at play.

“We’re living longer. Our babies are surviving birth,” says McCoy, adding that more jobs on reservations, led by tribal gaming, is another reason for the growth. “So we have our peoples coming back from other states. They’re coming home because there is an economy.”

At Tulalip, that adds up to a 22 percent growth rate over the past decade. Other tribes around the country have grown even faster.

And not so good:

At the other end of the spectrum are tribes whose enrollments are stagnating, including for example the Colville Confederated Tribes in northeast Washington.

Tribal councilmember Ricky Gabriel has proposed a referendum to relax the blood requirement in the tribal constitution so more children of mixed marriages can enroll.

“I’ve had a lot of very positive [reactions],” he says. “The elders are extremely happy about this. They’re pushing hard. They’re seeing their grandchildren not be able to be enrolled.”

Enrollment in the tribe currently requires a minimum of one-quarter Colville blood. But when you have intermarriage, that bloodline is diluted. It takes just a couple of generations of intermarriage to put the children at risk of being disqualified from membership.

Then the tribal population withers. The proposed referendum would change the rules to count any Indian blood toward the minimum.

Federal NAGPRA/NHPA Claims re: Mt. Hood Road Construction Survive Motions to Dismiss … For Now

Here are the materials in Slockish v. FHA (D. Or.):

Magistrate Report in Slockish

DCT Order in Slockish


Oregon Court of Appeals Rejects Siletz Challenge to State Ceremonial Hunting Rule re: Grand Ronde

Here is the opinion in Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon v. Ore. Fish and Wildlife Commission.

An excerpt:

Pursuant to ORS 183.400, petitioner Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon challenges OAR 635–043–0120, a rule promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) authorizing the issuance of ceremonial hunting permits for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon (Grand Ronde Tribes or “the tribe”) and establishing requirements for the use of those permits. Petitioner contends that the rule is invalid because it exceeds FWC’s statutory authority and because its adoption violates “separation of powers provisions of the Oregon Constitution.” We reject without discussion petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the rule and write only to discuss its assertion that the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency. Based on our review of OAR 635–043–0120 and the pertinent statutes, we conclude that the rule is valid.

If anyone has briefs, would love to post them.