Judge Ron Whitener, Chief Judge of the Tulalip Tribal Court, was the first ever Native plenary speaker at NCJFCJ’s Annual Conference. He gave a presentation entitled “How State and Tribal Court Judges Can Work Together to Improve Outcomes.” Judge Whitener’s presentation was very well-received by the judges, and he received a standing ovation from the audience.
In addition, Kate Fort presented a well-attended session entitled “What State Court Judges Need to Know About ICWA.” Kate gave a brief update on recent court activity around ICWA and then summarized some key provisions in the new ICWA regulations. The judges were thrilled to receive this brand new and important information.
Thanks to both of them for their contributions to the conference and to NCJFCJ for its continuing commitment to tribal courts, tribal issues, and tribal-state collaborations.
Kathryn Fort has posted a draft of her paper, Disruption and Impossibility: New Laches and the Unfortunate Resolution of the Iroquois Land Claims in Federal Court, forthcoming in the Wyoming Law Review as part of an Indian law symposium, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
That the law changes over time is no secret. That the law changes based on the parties involved is less obvious, but still no secret. In the case of the Haudenosaunee land claims cases, however, the law shifted dramatically and quickly based entirely on the identity of the parties. In less than five years, the federal appellate courts changed the law so drastically to all but end more than thirty years of modern litigation, reversing years of relative fairness at the district court level. These actions required a fundamental shift in the law of equity: the creation of a new equitable defense for governments against Indian land claims. How the courts accomplished so much in such a short amount of time requires a close reading of the cases and a few logical leaps.
The first part of this article will give a brief history of the New York land claims, focusing on the Oneida Indian Nation and the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York. While the tribes have been fighting the status of this land since the original agreements were signed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, this article looks to the modern era of land claims in the federal courts. The second part of this article will review how a decision in the Oneida claims case directly informed City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation. The third part will focus on the Cayuga Nation line of cases and how Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki changed the fundamental understanding of the equitable defense of laches into a new defense used to defeat tribal land claims. Finally, the fourth part of this article will look closely at the most recent loss, Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, where the court admits the creation of a new equitable defense. This defense, identified as “new laches” or “Indian law laches” is a defense that can prevent even the bringing of a land claim in the courts. The defense is no longer traditional laches, but rather an equitable defense that follows none of the rules of equity, and exists only in federal Indian law.
The podcast is here. Speakers included:
Bell Jeannine – Speaker
Kathryn Fort – Speaker
Kevin Maillard – Speaker
Carla Pratt – Speaker
G.W. Rice – Speaker
Sherri N. Thomas — Speaker
Matthew L.M. Fletcher — moderator