District of Nebraska – Page 3

Additionally, the reporter, Stephanie Woodward, conducted three interviews with Indian country professionals (Diane Garreau, Frank LaMere, Danialle Rose) on Indian child welfare in the aftermath of the NPR profile from last year.

WaPo: Oglala Sioux Tribes Sues Beer Manufactures and Whiteclay Distributors

February 9, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Schwarting (D. Neb.):

OST v Schwarting Complaint

Omaha Tribe Member’s Challenge to the Eagle Act Fails

December 27, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The lesson learned, once again, is to request a permit to take eagles. Here are the materials in U.S. v. Bertucci (D. Neb.):

Bertucci R&R

Bertucci DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Pro Se Claim for Tribal Per Cap

September 26, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion ins Springer v. Griffin (D. Neb.), a claim against the Omaha Tribe — Springer v Griffin

An excerpt:

Liberally construed, Plaintiff brings his claims pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulation Act (“IGRA”). 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721. The IRGA provides Indian tribes with the authority to distribute gaming proceeds to tribal members, per capita, if such distribution is in compliance with an approved allocation plan. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(3). It is unclear from Plaintiff’s Complaint if the Omaha Tribe has such an approved plan. However, even if it does, whether Plaintiff is entitled to the tribe’s casino proceeds turns on a determination of whether Plaintiff is a tribal member.

If Plaintiff is not a tribal member, the court lacks jurisdiction to over his claims. As discussed above, a tribe has the exclusive authority to determine its membership. There is no greater intrusion upon tribal sovereignty than for a federal court to interfere with this determination. See Smith, 100 F.3d at 559. Continue reading →

U.S. v. St. Cyr — Sentencing American Indians in Federal Offenses

May 22, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is an interesing sentencing memorandum out of the District of Nebraska. Apparently, the court refused to adopt an argument by the United States to sentence American Indians for longer terms than they would otherwise be sentenced under state law, at least in this case. Seems to recall footnote 11 in United States v. Antelope. Luke St Cyr Sentencing Memorandum

An excerpt:

In connection with the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the court notes that these crimes, if committed by a non-Native American outside a reservation, are prosecuted in state court. The court acknowledges the Sentencing Commission’s finding that the Sentencing Guidelines result in longer sentences for Native Americans than they would otherwise receive. There is no way to compare sentences for non-Native Americans who commit these crimes without reference to state court sentences. The court finds no principled reason to subject this defendant to a substantially longer sentence than his state court non-Native American counterpart would serve. Although state court sentences would not ordinarily be considered in connection with federal court sentencing, such consideration is necessary when it is the only basis on which to assess the sentencing goal of avoiding disparity. Although there are arguably situations in which the disparate impact on a group of defendants could be justified by legitimate sentencing goals that target the shared characteristics that define the group, such as recidivists, it is hard to imagine that any legitimate sentencing purpose would justify the imposition of significantly higher sentences on Native Americans by reason of their status as Native Americans.