Here is the opinion in United States v. Veneno.
Briefs:
Jicarilla Apache Nation
Jicarilla Apache Accepting Applicants for Controller
Download announcement here.
New Scholarship on Jicarilla Apache Nation’s Water a Rights Brokering
Here:
The Promise of Indian Water Leasing: An Examination of One Tribe’s Success at Brokering Its Surplus Water Rights
Justin Nyberg 181
After reaching water rights settlements, a number of Native American tribes find themselves with rights to more water than their reservations or pueblo communities presently need. As climate change exacerbates drought conditions in the western United States and demand for water increases, some tribes have leased these surplus water rights to public and private, non-Indian, users. Theoretically, this could be a boon for tribes, although the extent of the economic impact of water leasing is difficult to assess without an examination of each individual water lease. This paper attempts to illustrate the economic impact of Indian water rights leasing anecdotally, by examining the leasing efforts of one particularly successful tribe, the Jicarilla Apache Nation in northern New Mexico.
Indian Law Jobs in New Mexico Bar Bulletin
Here.
I saw postings for an Isleta Pueblo judge and a Jicarilla water law attorney.
Prepared Witness Testimony in SCIA Oversight Hearing on the Trust Responsibility
Here:
Panel # 1
Ms. Melody McCoy
Staff Attorney
Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, CO
Mr. Matthew L. M. Fletcher
Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center
Michigan State University College of Law, East Lansing, MI
Mr. Daniel Rey-Bear
Partner
Nordhaus Law Firm, LLP, Albuquerque, NM
Panel # 2
Mr. Ray Halbritter
Nation Representative
Oneida Indian Nation, Verona, NY
The Honorable Fawn Sharp
President
Quinault Indian Nation, Taholah, WA
The Honorable Brooklyn D. Baptiste
Vice-Chairman
Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, ID
I don’t see Jicarilla’s testimony here.
Justice Thomas’ Indian Law Vision
Much is being made of Justice Thomas as a rising leader in the Roberts Court, which quietly says a great deal about the incredible conservatism of the Court right now. Justice Thomas views on gun control, which former Chief Justice Burger would have labeled “fraudulent,” are now the law. Jefffrey Toobin’s New Yorker piece, profiled at SBM blog, notes that Thomas’s dissenting and concurring opinions long have espoused well-nigh radical notions of constitutional law, and are now being vindicated one after the other.
Justice Thomas’s radical vision of the law also has touched Indian law. In particular, Thomas has suggested two major changes to Indian law jurisprudence.
First, in White Mountain Apache, he wrote that the trust relationship was more properly viewed as a “guardian-ward relationship,” a view adopted to some extent by the Jicarilla Court just a few months ago:
The Court of Claims has observed that the relationship between the United States and Indians is not governed by ordinary trust principles: “The general relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes is not comparable to a private trust relationship. When the source of substantive law intended and recognized only the general, or bare, trust relationship, fiduciary obligations applicable to private trustees are not imposed on the United States. Rather, the general relationship between Indian tribes and [the United States] traditionally has been understood to be in the nature of a guardian-ward relationship. A guardianship is not a trust. The duties of a trustee are more intensive than the duties of some other fiduciaries.” Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 21 Cl.Ct. 565, 573 (1990) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
One can only wonder what Justice Thomas would have done if Cobell had fallen into the Court’s lap. Today’s posting on the lower court’s sarcastic rejection of the government’s position on the merits of the Jicarilla trust claim suggests the DOJ and DOI are more than willing to offer up an argument to return the trust relationship to the Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock era.
Second, Justice Thomas has stated an interest in extending his onslaught on the commerce clause to the Indian Commerce Clause context. In United States v. Lara, he linked Lopez and Morrison to the Indian Commerce Clause: Continue reading
New Mexico Bankruptcy Court Holds Bankruptcy Code Waives Tribal Immunity
Here are some of the materials in In re Platinum Properties, Inc. (Bankr. N.M.):
Bkrcy CT Order re Platinum Oil
Jicarilla Motion for Summary J
Other materials are here.
Materials in Pending Case re: Indian Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Bankruptcy Code
Interesting stuff. The case is In re Platinum Products (D. N.M. Bkrtcy.):
Jicarilla Motion for Summary Judgment
Debtor’s Response to Jicarilla Statement of Facts
Federal Circuit Adopts Fiduciary Exception to Atty-Client Privilege in Tribal Trust Cases
One would expect a cert petition from the United States in the new year on this one.
An excerpt:
The United States petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the Court of Federal Claims (“trial court”) to vacate its orders requiring the United States to produce documents that it asserts are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Jicarilla Apache Nation (“Jicarilla”) opposes. We hold that the United States cannot deny an Indian tribe’s request to discover communications between the United States and its attorneys based on the attorney-client privilege when those communications concern management of an Indian trust and the United States has not claimed that the government or its attorneys considered a specific competing interest in those communications. Accordingly, we adopt the fiduciary exception in tribal trust cases. Under the fiduciary exception, a fiduciary may not block a beneficiary from discovering information protected under the attorney-client privilege when the information relates to fiduciary matters, including trust management. Because we find that the trial court correctly applied the fiduciary exception to the United States’ privileged communications, we deny the United States’ petition for a writ of mandamus.
Commissioner of Public Lands v. New Mexico Cert Petition
This new filing (commissioner-public-lands-cert-petition) is an appeal of a New Mexico appellate court decision (here). The case also involves the Jicarilla Apache Nation, Navajo Nation, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.
Here is the question presented:
Whether the New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands may claim federal reserved water rights with respect to lands Congress reserved from the federal public domain, and granted to the State of New Mexico subject to a strict, federally enforceable trust, to support public education and for other related purposes specified by Congress.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.