Here:
Davis Brief in Support (April 2015)
Davis Motion to Reconsider (April 2015)
DSS Brief in Support (April 2015)
DSS Joinder in Arguments of other Defendants (April 2015)
DSS Motion to Reconsider (April 2015)
Vargo Brief in Support (April 2015)
Vargo Brief in Support Revised (April 2015)
The order at issue is here.
Here are the new materials in Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Court (D. S.D.):
178 Sprint Motion for Partial Summary J
243 DCT Order Denying Motion for Summary J
Prior post in this case here.
Here.
All of the cards were stacked against the parents in these proceedings and the parents lost 100 percent of the time.
That’s right, you didn’t misread that. The state won 100 percent of the time, which isn’t surprising given that only the state was allowed to present any evidence and all of that evidence was submitted secretly to the judge. But two South Dakota Indian tribes — the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe — and three Indian parents fought back.
Here are the materials in Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Court (D. S.D.):
190 Native American Telecom Opposition
We have posted on this case before:
The 45 page order granting partial summary judgment is HERE, with a judgment order granting injunctive and declaratory relief forthcoming in May.
The court finds that Judge Davis, States Attorney Vargo, Secretary Valenti and Ms. Van Hunnick developed and implemented policies and procedures for the removal of Indian children from their parents’ custody in violation of the mandates of the Indian Child Welfare Act and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The case directly addressed section 1922 emergency removal standard of evidence and return of the child; and due process claims at those emergency hearings (48-hour hearing) of notice, the right of parents to present evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, attorney representation, and a decision based on evidence at that hearing.
Among many other things, the judge addresses both the old and new Guidelines (which specifically mentioned this case):
A simple examination of these administrative materials should have convinced the defendants that their policies and procedures were not in conformity with ICWA § 1922, the DOI Guidelines or the Guidelines promulgated by the South Dakota Unified Judicial System. Indian children, parents and tribes deserve better.
The order grants summary judgment on the ICWA violations AND the Due Process ones:
Judge Davis and the other defendants failed to protect Indian parents’ fundamental rights to a fair hearing by not allowing them to present evidence to contradict the State’s removal documents. The defendants failed by not allowing the parents to confront and cross-examine DSS witnesses. The defendants failed by using documents as a basis for the court’s decisions which were not provided to the parents and which were not received in evidence at the 48-hour hearings.
This is amazing–congratulations and many thanks to all involved. Especially to the families.
Previous coverage here. Summary judgment briefs and exhibits here.
Here are the materials in LeBeau v. United States (D. S.D.):
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs’ claims accrued decades ago and are therefore barred by the statute of limitations. As this court stated in 2013, it is sympathetic to the claims made by plaintiffs. But even sympathetic claims must comply with jurisdictional requirements. Because there is no valid waiver of sovereign immunity, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Plaintiffs may deserve compensation, but that compensation must come from Congress.
Prior suit materials are here.
Here are the materials in Sprint Communications Co. LP v. Wynne (D. S.D.):
Here are the materials in Archambault v. United States (D. S.D.):
49 DCT Order Granting Summary J to the US
An excerpt:
Plaintiff, in the briefs, has lodged many complaints against the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) and the failures of the United States to live up to treaty obligations. The court sympathizes with the plaintiff. The problems within HIS are well known, at least to those of us with significant contacts with “Indian Country.” I have often observed that Native Americans have been and are being unfairly treated by the United States, considering the failed promises these many years. This court, however, cannot micromanage the IHS or even a single clinic. I cannot dictate how many hours per day or week or month any federal health care provider should be required to be on duty. The court also realizes how very difficult it is for any health care agency to recruit and retain qualified health care providers, especially in rural isolated areas. Living conditions are often sub-standard, especially for highly educated workers. The climate is rather harsh. The ultimate solution is for Native Americans to obtain the necessary education and skills to return to serve their families and others. That process has already started and improvements have been made by dedicated health care providers. Much more remains to be accomplished.
Prior post on this case here.
Here are the materials in Poor Bear v. Jackson County (D. S.D.):
29 Statement of the Interest of the US
Complaint here. Other materials here.
News coverage here.
UPDATE: I should point out this doesn’t look like a formal motion to intervene, more like an amicus brief.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.