Hey, what’s going on with Indianz?
Update — Indianz is here temporarily.
Hey, what’s going on with Indianz?
Update — Indianz is here temporarily.
Indianz has links to the letters in which the Secretary of Interior rejected proposals to take land into trust for gaming purposes.
This is a significant development. Expect litigation, hopefully smart litigation.
From the Detroit Free Press (H/T Indianz):
December 13, 2007
The chairman of the Greektown Casino board of directors has been forced to step down after being accused of assaulting a woman who fought off his sexual advances.
Here’s the ACLU website on this incredible and ugly case, involving Indian students at a school bordering the Rosebud. Here is the Indian.com coverage of the judge’s approval of the settlement.
Here are the relevant materials from the settlement in the Antoine v. Winner School District:
From Indianz:
Readers of The Detroit News support a treaty rights settlement between the state of Michigan and five tribes.
Alex Hess: “In my opinion it is important that we honor the Native Americans because this originally is their land..”
Isaac C. Griffin: “The land is a Native American reservation and it should remain that way.”
Garrison Warr: “Even though 171 years have passed, it does not mean that these sports fishermen and the charter boat operators have the right to break the treaty that was made with the Indians, and do what they please with property which does not belong to them.”
Mike Stankiewicz: “Instead of bossing around the Native Americans even more, I feel we should respect the fact that their ancestors lived on this ground for many years before the white man came along.”
Get the Story:
Indians deserve support in fishing dispute (The Detroit News 11/20)
According to Indianz.com: ” As a student at UND in the 1960s, Judge Lawrence Jahnke belonged to the all-male Golden Feather pep club. The group created the controversial “Sammy the Sioux” mascot that depicted an Indian in a cartoonish fashion. The group also chose the “Indian maiden” outfits worn by UND cheerleaders.”
The relevant section of the N.D. Code of Judicial Conduct (along with the official commentary) is here:
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
Commentary:
Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. For example, if a judge were in the process of negotiating for employment with a law firm, the judge would be disqualified from any matters in which that law firm appeared, unless the disqualification was waived by the parties after disclosure by the judge.
A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.
By decisional law, the rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. For example, a judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary statute, or might be the only judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing on probable cause or a temporary restraining order. In the latter case, the judge must disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and use reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable.
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge* of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;
N.D. Code Judicial Conduct Canon 3.
Although Judge Jahnke denies it, it seems clear that his impartiality in this matter be reasonably questioned. His support of an even more offensive logo (Sammy), not to mention Indian maiden cheerleader uniforms, in his college days suggests that he would not find the current logo offensive. He has already exercised a great deal of discretion in granting a preliminary injunction in favor of UND. But to be fair, North Dakota is a small state. And, if my recollection is accurate, four of the five ND Sup. Ct. justices are UND grads. My guess is that a motion to recuse would be pointless.
I’m still trying to figure out why the NCAA never asked to remove the case to federal court. I suppose that’s why I’m not a trial litigator.
More coverage from Indianz:
Get the Story:
Jahnke: Golden Feather membership not relevant (The Grand Forks Herald 10/25)
Username: indianz@indianz.com, Password: indianz
Judge’s Sioux ties run deep (The Fargo Forum 10/24)
Username: indianz@indianz.com, Password: indianz
Editorial: Judge errs in sealing Sioux files (The Fargo Forum 10/24)
From Indianz.com:
Rhode Island appeals land-into-trust ruling
Friday, October 19, 2007The state of Rhode Island is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a land-into-trust case that is being watched by tribes nationwide.
In July, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Bureau of Indian Affairs can place 31 acres in trust for the Narragansett Tribe. The tribe is like any other tribe and can follow the Indian Reorganization Act, which authorized the land-into-trust process, the court said.
As I will argue in my forthcoming article, “Factbound and Splitless: An Empirical Study of the Impact of the Certiorari Process on Federal Indian Law,” the Supreme Court is unlikely to grant cert. in this case for two important reasons. First, there is no circuit split (“splitless”). What that means is that the federal courts of appeal that have addressed the question of the constitutionality of the fee to trust process (25 U.S.C. § 465) — the 8th Circuit in South Dakota v. Kempthorne, the 10th Circuit in Utah v. Shivwits, and the 11th Circuit in Roberts v. U.S., are examples — have held (just as the 1st Circuit did here) that the statute is constitutional.
Second, this case involves the muddying aspects of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act and how it affects the application of § 465, rendering this case a bit messy as a factual matter (“factbound”). If this was a straight-up interpretation of § 465 without the Settlement Act’s application, the Court would be more likely to grant cert (although, without a split, not so much). In short, this case implicates a relatively small number of tribes (those Rhode Island tribes).
Land-into-Trust Decision:
Carcieri v. Kempthorne (July 20, 2007)
Earlier 1st Circuit Decision:
Carcieri v. Norton (February 9, 2005)
Relevant Documents:
Carcieri v. Norton Briefs, Opinions (NARF-NCAI Tribal Supreme Court Project
Relevant Laws:
Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act (US Code)
Relevant Links:
Narragansett Tribe – http://www.narragansett-tribe.org
Tribal Supreme Court Project – http://www.narf.org/sct/index.html
Here’s the short article — with a dashing photo of our keynote, Frank Ettawageshik.
Of course, Indianz profiled our conference from last spring as well. As did the State News.
Miigwetch!