Hawaii

Randall Akee: “The press for Native Hawaiian federal recognition is presumptuous”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Hawaii Independent. A response to this news.

An excerpt:

In moving forward, what should be done? The process for Federal recognition was a knee-jerk reaction to the Rice v. Cayetano decision. Surely there are other legal strategies and plans that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and State officials can undertake to protect the OHA trust assets and Native Hawaiian entitlement programs. In the 14 years since the decision, the trust and programs have survived without a serious attack. It should be noted that political winds change all the time and there is no absolute certainty with Federal recognition either. For instance, during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s the US Federal government’s policy was to terminate the legal and political existence of some Federally recognized American Indian tribes in California, Oregon and a number of other US States. During the Civil Rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, the US Federal government made a significant change in that policy and worked to empower tribal governments. However, it is impossible to guarantee that future US Federal policies will not shift back in that direction again. 

DOI Considers Procedures to Reestablish Government-to-Government Relationship with Native Hawaiians

Kate Fort1 Comment

Press release here.

Federal Registry Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking here.

2000 DOI/DOJ Report on the Reconciliation Process here.
FAQ here.

Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii v. Holder, Order Granting Summary Judgment

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.

Briefs to come later.

Not affiliated with legitimate Native American Church practitioners.

New Law Could Help Increase Native Hawaiian Roll Effort

Victoria Sweet

A new state law allowing proof of ancestry to be taken from several sources is expected to make it easier to expand the roll of Native Hawaiians – a move that could help them form their own government.

The law that went into effect Monday aims to increase the number of people on the roll by reducing paperwork and redundancy on various lists of Native Hawaiians such as those at Kamehameha Schools and for homestead land leases, Hawaii News Now reported Thursday.

Article here.

New Scholarship on Tribal Customs and Land Use

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

John C. Hoelle has published his interesting paper, “Re-Evaluating Tribal Customs of Land Use Rights,” in the University of Colorado Law Review, available on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Indigenous peoples developed sustainable land tenure systems over countless generations, but these customary systems of rights are barely used by American Indian tribes today. Would increasing formal recognition of these traditional customs be desirable for tribes in a modern context? This Comment examines one traditional form of indigenous land tenure – the use right – and argues that those tribes that historically recognized use rights in land might benefit from increased reliance on these traditional customs. The Comment argues that in the tribal context, use rights can potentially be just as economically efficient, if not more so, than the Anglo-American system of unqualified, absolute ownership in land. The Comment also argues that tribal customs of land use rights may help preserve Indian cultural identity by cultivating core, non-economic values of tribal peoples. The Comment concludes by addressing some of the challenges tribes will likely face in attempting to more broadly rely on their customs of land use rights in the new millennium, while also remarking on some current and important opportunities for the re-integration of tribal customs in tribal land law.

2008 Term Preview: The Long Conference — September 29, 2008

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

On September 29, 2008, the Supreme Court will convene for what is known as the long conference. Here is where the Court meets privately to make decisions on the summer backlog of cert petitions. There are EIGHT Indian law-related cert petitions scheduled for review in the long conference. There is a very good chance that one or more of these petitions will be granted.

1. Hawaii v. Office of Indian Affairs (07-1372)

This petition has a fairly good chance to be granted.

The first factor weighing in favor of a grant is that a state government is bringing the petition. The second factor weighing in favor are the three amicus briefs supporting the petition, often an attention getter for the clerks. Moreover, one of the amicus briefs is signed by 30 states and a U.S. territory, yet another point in favor of a grant. The wild card factor is that a similar petition reached the Court in the 2006 Term, but that one was settled out of court and dismissed (Doe v. Kamehameha Schools). Moreover, there is a case similar to Doe that has just been filed, and the Court might want to wait for that one (not sure why).

2. Ho-Chunk Nation v. Wisconsin (07-1402)

I don’t think this one has much chance to be granted.

It’s a sort of an interlocutory appeal, meaning the lower court hasn’t even reached the merits yet. And it’s being brought by an Indian tribe, which doesn’t appear to impress the Justices much. Finally, the petition cites me for the proposition that this is an important case, always a serious mistake. 8)

3. Kemp v. Osage Nation (07-1484)

This has a fairly good chance of being granted, too, but maybe not as good as the Hawaii case.

Kemp is actually the Oklahoma Tax Commission, always a Supreme Court favorite (remember the 1990s, Citizen Potawatomi, Sac and Fox, and Chickasaw Nation?). So, it’s a state government bringing the petition, weighing in favor of a grant. Moreover, the subject matter of the case is state sovereign immunity and the Ex parte Young exception. Again, a factor favoring a grant. But there doesn’t seem to be a split in authority. And the state’s argument that the Tenth Circuit’s decision conflicts with Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene seems to be a stretch, because this case is about taxation, and that one was about actual title to land.

4. Kickapoo v. Texas (07-1109)

This one has a slight chance for a grant.

I’d have said all along (and I did, I think) that this case has no chance for a grant. And then the US filed an unusual brief arguing for a denial, but making a powerful case for why the CA5 got this one wrong on every level. If the US brought the petition (it didn’t), then maybe there would be a grant on that argument alone. Baffling. Texas initially refused to file a cert opposition (probably because they read my blog entry 🙂 ), but then the Court called for a response.

Still, there’s no split. And other cases involving the same exact question are in the pipeline in Florida and Alabama. The Court will probably let this one percolate below.

5. Klamath Tribes v. PacificCorp (07-1492)

This one has no chance.

First, it’s being brought by an Indian tribe, not a favored petitioner. Second, Klamath is bringing a federal common law cause of action. The Court doesn’t favor those, either. And third, there’s no split in authority. Poor fish. 😦

6. Matheson v. Gregoire (08-23)

Again, no chance.

First, the case is being brought by an individual Indian who is challenging the fact that his tribe entered into a tax agreement with the state. He could challenge the agreement in tribal court (maybe he is), but instead he’s going to federal court. Second, there’s no split at all.

7. South Fork Band v. United States (08-100, 08-231)

No chance.

This is a case trying to reopen parts of the odious United States v. Dann decision from 20 years ago. The Court doesn’t like that, either.

8. United States v. Navajo Nation (07-1410)

Very, very good chance for a grant.

First, the petition is brought by the United States, which is the premier party in the Court’s eyes. I suspect far more than half of the US’s petitions are granted, and I’m sure all but a very few are seriously considered by the Court in conference. Second, this is the continuation of a case the Court thought to be important in 2002, U.S. v. Navajo Nation I. That case (and this one, too) involves a judgment against the United States that could reach one billion dollars, if interest attaches (a mere $600 million if it doesn’t). Third, though the Court technically left open several questions after Navajo Nation I, it strongly stamped down the first theory brought by the Navajo Nation. One suspects the Court doesn’t like seeing a case reaching an outcome it rejected once come back again under a second theory. We could either have an outcome like U.S. v. Mitchell (tribe loses first time, comes back second time and wins with new theory), or N.Y. v. Milhelm Attea (Court repeatedly instructs lower court to find against tribe, only to be forced to do the dirty work itself).

Either way you have a grant.

Wither the Akaka Bill?

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The White House OMB came out with its objections to the Akaka Bill, namely that the Congressional recognition of Native Hawaiians would be an unconstitutional race-based classification.

My sense is that any constitutional objections to the Bill could be overcome with the political will to do so. But this document articulates (in coded language) that there just is no political will from the Bush Administration to take any action to assist people of color.