Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act

Federal Court Dismisses N. Arapaho Claims for Contract Support Costs for Programs Funded by Third-Party Revenue

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Cochrane (D. Wyo.):

1 Complaint

19 Motion to Dismiss

20 Response

25 Reply

26 DCT Order

This case is a few weeks old, and an appeal has been filed to the Tenth Circuit.

Federal Court Holds S. Cal. Indian Health Consortium Immune from Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Manzano v. Southern Indian Health Council Inc. (S.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

5-1 Motion to Dismiss

7 Opposition

10 Reply

16 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Employment Action against Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Wilson v. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (D. Alaska):

32 Motion to Disqualify Counsel

49 Second Amended Complaint

51 Motion to Dismiss

56 US Statement re 32

57 Plaintiffs’ Response to 32 and 51

67-1 Reply in Support of 32

69 Plaintiffs’ Surreply re 32

73 Plaintiffs’ Response to 51 + Motion for Discovery

78 Opposition to Motion for Discovery

79 Reply in Support of 51

81 Reply in Support of Motion for Disco

87 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Suit against Tribal Insurers

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Allied World Assurance Company:

CA9 unpublished memorandum

Opening Brief

Allied Answer Brief

York Answer Brief

Reply Brief

Northern Arapaho Tribes Sues Interior to Compel 638 Tribal Court Contract

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. United States Department of the Interior (D. Mont.):

Complaint

An excerpt:

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages brought against the United States Department of the Interior (“Department”); its Secretary; and Regional Director for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) for violations of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”) and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Northern Arapaho Tribe (“NAT” or “Tribe”) submitted to the BIA a contract proposal for judicial services and requested technical assistance, consultation and a waiver of any regulations that the BIA thought could prevent or impede approval. The BIA failed or refused to provide technical assistance, consultation, or the requested waiver and declined the proposal. These failures and the declination violate the ISDEAA and applicable regulations. The Tribe is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, plus interest, pursuant to the ISDEAA.

Fletcher & Singel on the Historical Basis for the Trust Relationship between the US and Indian Children

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Fletcher & Singel have posted “Indian Children and the Federal Tribal Trust Relationship” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

This article develops the history of the role of Indian children in the formation of the federal-tribal trust relationship and comes as constitutional challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) are now pending. We conclude the historical record demonstrates the core of the federal-tribal trust relationship is the welfare of Indian children and their relationship to Indian nations. The challenges to ICWA are based on legally and historically false assumptions about federal and state powers in relation to Indian children and the federal government’s trust relationship with Indian children.

Indian children have been a focus of federal Indian affairs at least since the Framing of the Constitution. The Founding Generation initially used Indian children as military and diplomatic pawns, and later undertook a duty of protection to Indian nations and, especially, Indian children. Dozens of Indian treaties memorialize and implement the federal government’s duty to Indian children. Sadly, the United States then catastrophically distorted that duty of protection by deviating from its constitution-based obligations well into the 20th century. It was during this Coercive Period that federal Indian law and policy largely became unmoored from the constitution.

The modern duty of protection, now characterized as a federal general trust relationship, is manifested in federal statutes such as ICWA and various self-determination acts that return self-governance to tribes and acknowledge the United States’ duty of protection to Indian children. The federal duty of protection of internal tribal sovereignty, which has been strongly linked to the welfare of Indian children since the Founding, is now as closely realized as it ever has been throughout American history. In the Self-Determination Era, modern federal laws, including ICWA, constitute a return of federal Indian law and policy to constitutional fidelity.