ETA: This is NOT limited to California
I have received word that some information in the 2018 Fed Reg ICWA Agents for Notice publication is completely (and wildly) incorrect, even though the information in 2017 was correct (and hadn’t changed): “It was absolutely correct last year. The person listed is not and has never been affiliated with [TRIBE]. The address is completely wrong, including the city.”
Tribes! PLEASE check this document to make sure your ICWA agent for notice information is correct. If you can, let me know if it isn’t. We are trying to get a sense of whether this is limited to California tribes or not. This is the document we all train on and send people to (I was honestly in the middle of teaching a class on notice when I received this information). Thank you.
Here is the complaint in the matter of State of Connecticut et al v. Zinke et al, 17-cv-02564 (D.D.C. Nov. 29, 2017):
Doc. 1 – Civil Cover Sheet and Complaint
With the State of Connecticut, the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot Tribes have filed suit against the Secretary of Interior after the Department failed to treat submitted
amendments to their gaming compact as deemed approved and publish in the Federal Register notice that the amendments are deemed approved.
Download(PDF) DAPL motion and memorandum of law filed January 16, 2017:
From the District Court for the District of Columbia in the matter of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1:16-cv-01796-JEB:
“MINUTE ORDER: As explained in open court following today’s hearing, the Court ORDERS that Dakota Access’s 80 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED and its Motion for Preliminary Injunction is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 01/18/2017. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 01/18/2017)”
Download(PDF) Federal Register : Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in Connection With Dakota Access, LLC’s Request for an Easement To Cross Lake Oahe, North Dakota
Somehow in all of the recent ICWA-related new, we missed the March 16 release of the updated list of designated tribal agents for ICWA notice.
Here, at 81 Fed. Reg. 10887 (March 16, 2016). We did a quick control+F search in the list for “Mohawk,” and the St. Regis Mohawk designated agent for ICWA popped right up. This list should be bookmarked on every state child welfare worker’s computer.
Given yesterday’s announcement about the proposed ICWA rules, here is a quick and general guide to how a proposed rule becomes a part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Here is the Federal Register Tutorial: What it is and how to use it (you know you want to know the historical background of the Federal Register Act).
There is also a lot of information over at the Cornell Legal Information Institute’s Regulation Room on what federal rule making is, and what makes for effective comments.
For anyone interested in the issue of firearms on tribal lands, including the push to keep firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers:
is a link to an article on the new rule allowing tribal law enforcement agencies to access the FBI criminal background check system.
Some quotes from the article:
The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is expanding background checks for firearm sales on sovereign Indian reservations as part of the Obama administration’s push to reduce gun violence around the country.
Under new regulations, tribal law enforcement agencies will be allowed, though not required, to access the FBI’s criminal background check system before issuing gun licenses on reservations.
“This rule does not, in any way, preempt tribal law,” the FBI wrote. “Access is wholly discretionary on the part of the tribes. This rule does not in any way mandate tribal government action.”
Here is the Federal Register notice of the rule 2014-27386
H/T to Steve Aycock for bringing this to my attention.
NIGC Releases Economic Impact Study for Proposed Class II Regulations
WashingtonDC, February 1, 2008 — The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) today released an economic impact study in connection with its recently proposed Class II gaming regulations. The study was prepared by Dr. Alan Meister of the Analysis Group and follows a November 2006 study he did for the Commission on an earlier proposal.
NIGC extends comment period on Class II initiatives
Tribes have until March 9 to comment on the four controversial Class II initiatives proposed by the National Indian Gaming Commission. In notices published today in the Federal Register, the NIGC extended the comment period on the following: classification standards for bingo, pull tabs and similar games; a definition of electronic Class II games; minimum internal control standards for Class II games and technical standards for Class II games. The NIGC says the rules will clarify the difference between Class II games like bingo and Class III games like slot machines. Technological advances have blurred the lines. “Class II gaming has been the bedrock of Indian gaming and continues to play a vital role in the expanding industry. In order to preserve and respect the importance of Class II gaming, we are moving forward keeping all comments in mind and will act in a way to distinguish Class II gaming from Class III gaming,” NIGC Chairman Phil Hogen said.