Here is the opinion in LaBatte v. Gangle.
Briefs:

Teaching “Indian country” today. . . .
Authors: Rick West, Susan Williams, Kevin Gover, Art Lazarus, Reid Chambers, and William Perry.
Here are the materials in LaBatte v. Gangle (D.S.D.):
25 SWO Opposition to Motion for PI
30 Defendant’s Consolidated Reply

In this video representatives at the National Congress of American Indians talk about the importance of being counted and what it means to participate in the 2020 Census.
To fill out the 2020 Census online, start here.
Expanding Opportunity, Access, and Connectivity to Indian Country
The Summit will provide an opportunity for Tribal Leaders, representatives of Tribal organizations, representatives of schools and school districts serving under-connected Native students, Tribal libraries, museums, and cultural centers, private sector, and federal program managers and policymakers to facilitate meaningful discussions focused on bridging the connectivity gap in Indian Country. Sessions will focus on topics including: Funding Broadband Infrastructure, Connectivity Solutions, Planning and Implementation, Community Engagement & Partnerships, Leveraging Technology for Social and Economic Well-being, and Protecting & Preserving Culture.
Here are the materials in United States v. Vigil (D.N.M.):
Here is the opinion in United States v. Smith.
Briefs:
Here are the materials in United States v. Antonio (D.N.M.):
An excerpt:
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, filed April 10, 2017 (Doc. 62)(“Motion”). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on April 11, 2017, and a hearing on April 12, 2017. The primary issue is whether the Court has jurisdiction over this matter under the Indian Pueblo Land Act Amendments of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-133, 119 Stat. 2573 (Dec. 20, 2005), codified at 25 U.S.C. § 331 Note, because the automobile collision giving rise to Plaintiff United States of America’s criminal prosecution against Defendant Jeffrey Antonio, which occurred on private land, nonetheless occurred within the exterior boundaries of the 1748 Spanish land grant to the Sandia Pueblo, which Congress confirmed in the Act of December 22, 1858, 11 Stat. 374, 374 (1859). The Court concludes: (i) the automobile collision giving rise to this criminal cause of action occurred within the exterior boundaries of the 1748 Spanish land grant; and, consequently, (ii) under 25 U.S.C. § 331 Note, the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, the Court denies Antonio’s Motion.
You must be logged in to post a comment.