Here is “Duwamish Tribe Vows to Keep Fighting for Recognition, Despite Last Week’s Decision.”
federal recognition
Two Federal Acknowledgment Determinations–Pamunkey Indian Tribe makes 567
Press release here
Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn today issued final determinations for two petitioners under the existing Federal Acknowledgment process. The decisions include a final determination to acknowledge the petitioner known as the Pamunkey Indian Tribe (Petitioner #323) as a federally recognized Indian tribe, and a final determination on remand to decline acknowledgment for the petitioner known as the Duwamish Tribal Organization (DTO) (Petitioner #25).
Final letter to Pamunkey here.
Final determination, Pamunkey here
Final letter to Duwamish here.
Final determination, Duwamish here.
New Federal Acknowledgment Process Regs
Initiative Reforms a Process Long Criticized as “Broken,” Increases Transparency in Important Review of Tribal Recognition Status
“This updated rule is the product of extraordinary input from tribal leaders, states, local governments and the public,” said Assistant Secretary Washburn. “We have a responsibility to recognize those tribes that have maintained their identity and self-governance despite previous federal policies expressly aimed at destroying tribes. This new process remains rigorous, but it promotes timely decision-making through expedited processes and increases transparency by posting all publically available petition materials online so that stakeholders are well-informed at each stage of the process. Many of these improvements came from public comments by stakeholders and we are grateful for their guidance.”
To maintain the substantive rigor and integrity of the current regulatory process (described in Part 83, Title 25 – Code of Federal Regulations), the final rule carries forward the current standard of proof and seven mandatory criteria that petitioners must meet to substantiate their claim to tribal identification, community and political authority. To promote fairness and consistent implementation, the new process provides that prior decisions, which found evidence or methodology sufficient to satisfy a particular criterion for a previous petitioner, are sufficient to satisfy that criterion for a present petitioner. The final rule further promotes consistent application by establishing a uniform evaluation period of more than a century, from 1900 to the present, to satisfy the seven mandatory criteria.
Key features of the final rule promote transparency by:
- Increasing public access to petition documents for Federal Acknowledgment;
- Expanding distribution of notices of petitions to include local governments; and
- Increasing due process by providing for an administrative judge to conduct a comprehensive hearing and issue a recommended decision for proposed negative findings.
To build public trust in the Federal Acknowledgement process, the Department has been working to reform the Part 83 process since the beginning of the Obama Administration. At that time in 2009, Interior initiated its own review. In 2012, the Department identified guiding principles of the reform effort. In recognition of the high level of interest, the Department used a transparent rulemaking approach and significant outreach effort. Before beginning the formal rulemaking initiative, Interior issued a discussion draft in 2013 to facilitate public input on how to improve the process.
Through the discussion draft and ensuing tribal consultations and public meetings, the Department obtained substantial feedback. In total, more than 2,800 commenters provided input on the discussion draft. The Department issued a proposed rule in May of 2014 and extended the public comment period on that proposal in response to requests from tribes, state and local governments, members of Congress and the public. In total, more than 330 unique comments were submitted on the proposed rule. The final rule reflects substantial changes to the discussion draft and the proposed rule in response to public comments.
Federal acknowledgment establishes the U.S. Government as the trustee for Tribal lands and resources and makes Tribal members and governments eligible for federal budget assistance and program services. Since 1978, of the 566 federally recognized tribes, 17 have been recognized through the Part 83 process under Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe. The Department has denied acknowledgment to 34 other petitioning groups.
Though far more tribes have been recognized through Executive or Congressional action, the Part 83 process is an important mechanism because it allows deliberative consideration of petitions by a staff of federal experts in anthropology, genealogy and history and ultimately allows for a decision by the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. When petitioning groups that meet the criteria are officially “acknowledged” as Indian tribes, the U.S. Government accepts trusteeship of Tribal lands and natural resources. Tribal governments and members then become eligible to receive federal health, education, housing and other program and technical assistance.
The final rule and other information is online here.
Kirsten Carlson on Congress, Tribal Recognition, and Legislative-Administrative Multiplicity
Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted her paper, “Congress, Tribal Recognition, and Legislative-Administrative Multiplicity,” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
For over thirty years, tribal leaders, state officials, members of Congress, and scholars have decried the process by which the United States recognizes Indian tribes. Most accounts have focused exclusively on the administrative process, omitting Congress from their analyses and suggesting that Congress plays a minor role in tribal recognition. The widely-accepted proposition that Congress has relinquished control over recognition is a testable hypothesis. This article tests this proposition empirically. The results call into question the dominant narrative about the congressional role in federal recognition and show that it is just plain wrong. In addition to debunking prevailing misconceptions, the data exposes an intriguing puzzle — a more complicated tale of legislative-administrative multiplicity. Federal recognition is not a uniform administrative process. Instead, parallel legislative and administrative processes exist and often intersect in complex ways. This discovery is an important first step towards understanding these dual processes and their implications for federal Indian law and understandings of legislative-administrative relationships more generally.
Highly recommended.
New Student Scholarship on the Environmental Impact of Federal Recognition of American Indian Nations
The Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review has published “People of the Outside: The Environmental Impact of Federal Recognition of American Indian Nations” (PDF).
Here is the abstract:
American Indians interact with land and the environment in a manner that is distinct from non-native peoples. They view natural resources as an integral part of their way of life. As a result, Indian tribes desire to implement policies and programs that will protect their natural resources. In order to receive federal assistance for these policies and programs, however, a tribe must be federally recognized. The Duwamish tribe, which resides near Seattle, Washington, is not a federally recognized tribe. Despite years of fighting for recognition, the Duwamish cannot take part in the improvement of their tribal region’s air and water quality. Alternatively, the Forest County Potawatomi Community is federally recognized. The tribe has utilized its federal status to redesignate its reservation lands under the Clean Air Act, which brings stricter environmental regulations on and around the reservation. As long as the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ criteria for federal recognition continue to be arbitrarily and haphazardly enforced, unrecognized tribes like the Duwamish will continue to lack the power to address the environmental issues in their tribal region, in contravention of their fundamental beliefs and way of life.
Federal Court Rejects Gaming Bid of MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians
Here are the materials in State of Alabama v. 50 Serialized JLM Games (S.D. Ala.):
23 Alabama Response to Motion to Dismiss
31 MOWA Amended Notice of Removal to Federal Court
Federal Court Rejects Mackinac Tribe’s Bid for Federal Recognition
Mishewal Wappo Tribe Loses Trust Breach/Federal Recognition Claim
Here is the order in Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley v. Jewell (N.D. Cal.):
Briefs are here.
California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission Complaint
Here:
Second Circuit Rejects Schaghticoke Land Claims
Here is the unpublished opinion in Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Kent School Corp. Inc.:
An excerpt:
Ultimately, the district court concluded that the evidence submitted by STN was insufficient to satisfy the Montoya standard requiring that the group be “united in a community under one leadership or government.” Montoya, 180 U.S. at 266. In so deciding, it relied on DOI’s conclusions that STN had presented insufficient direct evidence of a distinct tribal community from 1920 to 1967 and after 1996, and of political authority over tribal members from 1801 to 1875 and after 1996. It was appropriate for the district court to rely on the DOI’s factual findings. To hold to the contrary would require the district court to conduct the independent, complex evidentiary hearing that this Court sought to avoid in Golden Hill.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.