Here is “Federal government to take over health care from Nooksack Tribe.” And:
03-27-17 IHS Reasssumption Letter to Robert Kellly Jr
NAICJA has requested that the Nooksack judge relinquish his membership from that organization:
03-27-17 NAICJA Letter to Raymond Dodge
HUD informed the tribe to stop evicting disenrollees:
Here:
Questions presented:
1) Whether the Ninth Circuit misconstrued and misunderstood requirements for finding a Federal Trust Responsibility to Indians. Is the pervasive role of the federal government based on the administration of the law as well as the letter of the law?2) Is there a conflict in the Circuits on this issue? Compare Brown v. United States, 86 F.3d 1554, 1560-61 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and other cases in the Federal Circuit with the decision of the Ninth Circuit in this case below (Marceau III, 540 F.3d 916, 928 (9th Cir. 2008).3) Is there a special burden on the federal government as it relates to Indian Housing in view of the Congressional Acts on Housing, the disadvantage to Indians caused by the Indian Allotment Act which prohibits Indians from holding title to their land, and the Indian Trust Responsibility of the federal government?4) Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in summarily dismissing Plaintiffs’ APA claim as time barred when the true state of affairs was not discovered until well within the statute of limitations? Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in not considering the federal Indian Trust Responsibility in connection with this decision?5) Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in holding that HUD had no duty to act on a specific request of the Housing Authority and the Blackfeet Tribe to “fix it?” Was the Ninth Circuit wrong in not considering the federal Indian Trust Responsibility in connection with this decision.
Here are the materials in Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority (and HUD):
The 10th Circuit found that the regulations used by HUD to deliver funds under NAHASDA did not conform to the clear intent of Congress. Specifically, the United Keetoowah Band’s lack of court jurisdiction did not mean the tribe could not receive funding.
The absence of such a connection means that HUD’s imposition of the [section]1000.302 Formula Area court jurisdiction requirement as a threshold for need-based funding over the minimum allocation is contrary to Congress’s plainly expressed intent because it leads to funding allocations based on factors that do not reflect tribal housing needs. This conclusion finds no better illustration than the case at hand: the UKB’s need for housing assistance did not abate when HUD concluded that the UKB lacked the ability to claim court jurisdiction.
Turtle Talk 