National Congress of American Indians – Page 3

NCAI: Feds to Pay Contract Support Costs

February 14, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Contract Support Costs To Be Paid IN FULL By Federal Government

WASHINGTON, DC – For the first time in decades, tribal nations will receive full payment on contracts signed with the federal government. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) have submitted plans to pay their 2014 contracts with tribes in full.

Many issues face Indian Country but one of the most far-reaching is the fiduciary relationship between tribal nations and the federal government. In setting out plans to pay their contract support cost requirements in full, the federal government will begin to treat tribal nations with the respect and honor due to them.

Under the Indian Self-Determination Act, the United States enters into inter-governmental contracts with tribes under which tribes administer federal programs for the benefit of tribal members. The Indian Self-Determination Act represents the cornerstone of this nation’s federal policy toward tribes for more than a third of a century and represents one of the most successful policy eras for tribes in US history.

Yet, time and time again, BIA and IHS have failed to pay the contract support costs in full while expecting the programs to be fulfilled completely. This cycle of negotiating contracts and then refusing to pay the agreed upon amount has prevented tribes from achieving self-determination and progress towards self-sufficiency. When Indian contract and self-governance compact contract support costs are short funded, tribes are actually penalized for exercising their self-determination rights, by being compelled to reduce program operations to cover these unavoidable costs.

While this recent development is a positive step for future contracts, federal agencies must also speed up the settlement of past claims. Agencies owe tribal nations millions of dollars in unpaid contract support costs – money that is critical for tribes to achieve full self-determination.

The National Congress of American Indians is committed to working with tribal nations and the federal government to ensure full payment of future contracts and to resolve the millions of dollars of debt owed to tribes.

For additional background information on Contract Support Costs, please read NCAI’s full report on Contract Support Costs or the summary briefing document.

Sixth Circuit Amicus Briefs in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. NLRB

December 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Chickasaw Nation Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

American Indian Law Scholars Amicus Brief

Ute Mountain Ute Amicus Curiae Brief

SCIT’s opening brief is here.

NCAI Discussion Webinar on VAWA Pilot Project

December 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

NCAI Discussion Webinar on the VAWA Pilot Project Final Notice and Application Questionnaire

The Department of Justice has posted its Final Notice establishing Procedures for the VAWA 2013 Tribal Pilot Project for tribal governments to implement special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction on an accelerated basis.

NCAI will be hosting a discussion webinar regarding the Final Notice and the Application Questionnaire on Tuesday, December 3^rd at 2:30 p.m. Eastern. Register for the webinar here. We have invited Sam Hirsch, Deputy Associate Attorney General, to join us and answer questions.

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief on Impact of Climate Change on Native Nations

November 18, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the brief of the National Congress of American Indians, authored by Elizabeth Kronk Warner, in Alec L. v. McCarthy:

NCAI Amicus Brief

NCAI Press Events During Week of White House Tribal Nations Conference

November 11, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

NCAI Press Events During Week Of White House Tribal Nations Conference

Indian Law and Order Commission Press Conference

WASHINGTON, DC: The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is pleased to announce a series of events surrounding the November 13, 2013 White House Tribal Nations Conference. The Conference gives the White House the opportunity to interact with tribal leaders from across Indian Country and the concentration of tribal leaders in Washington, DC allows Native and non-Native allies to discuss a wide variety of policies facing Native peoples.

Many inches and much airtime have been given to the debate over the name of the Washington, DC football team. The White House meeting and the preceding events on November 12^th are an opportunity for members of the media and the general public to become more acquainted with the diverse scope of issues currently under debate and review in Indian Country.

NCAI will hold a Tribal Leaders Preparatory Meeting prior to the Conference on November 12^th. The meetings are not open to press. However, there will be a press conference at 12:30pm and additional time set aside for connecting with tribal leaders.

The Indian Law and Order Commission, the national advisory board to the President and Congress on criminal justice issues created by the Tribal Law and Order Act, will hold a lunchtime press conference to release a new report, “Strengthening Justice for Native America: A Roadmap.” The report, one of the most comprehensive such studies ever undertaken, details the public safety crisis in Indian Country and recommends specific legal and policy reforms. “American Indian and Alaska Native communities and lands are often more dangerous than the rest of our country, and outmoded federal laws and policies are largely to blame,” stated Commission Chairman Troy Eid. “The Commission’s recommendations seek to eliminate the public safety gap that threatens so much of Native America.” The report will be made available to press during the event.

Continue reading →

New Scholarship Supporting Reform of 25 U.S.C. § 1500

November 8, 2013November 7, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Emily S. Bremer & Jonathan R. Siegel have published Clearing the Path to Justice: The Need to Reform 28 U.S.C. § 1500, in the Alabama Law Review.

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs suing the United States face a little-known obstacle to justice: 28 U.S.C. § 1500. This statute prohibits the United States Court of Federal Claims from exercising jurisdiction over a claim if the plaintiff has the same claim pending in another court. This apparently sensible rule causes considerable trouble because a “claim” is understood to include all claims based on the same operative facts, and Congress has required that certain types of claims against the United States must go to different courts. Therefore, a plaintiff with multiple claims against the United States may neither be able to bring the claims together in one case nor split them into separate cases. Section 1500 may effectively compel such a plaintiff to pursue only one claim and abandon the others. This unjust result is contrary to fundamental principles of modern civil procedure, which allow a plaintiff to pursue multiple claims against a defendant. Worse, it serves no good purpose. This Article argues that Congress should repeal § 1500 to provide justice to plaintiffs with multiple claims against the United States.

This article is based on a report they co-authored for the United States Administrative Conference.

NCAI Mascot Report

October 10, 2013October 10, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

NCAI Releases Report on History and Legacy of
Washington’s Harmful “Indian” Sports Mascot

Washington, DC – Just days after President Obama joined the growing chorus of those calling for the Washington NFL Team to consider changing its name, the team’s leadership justified the use of their “Indian” mascot as a central part of the team’s “history and legacy.” A new report released today by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), titled Ending the Legacy Of Racism in Sports & the Era of Harmful “Indian” Sports Mascots also outlines the team’s ugly and racist legacy, while highlighting the harmful impact of negative stereotypes on Native peoples.

The report details the position of NCAI, the nation’s oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization. The following is a statement released by NCAI’s Executive Director Jacqueline Pata along with the report:

“The report NCAI has released today provides the history of an overwhelming movement to end the era of harmful “Indian” mascots – including the fact that Native peoples have fought these mascots since 1963 and no professional sports team has established a new ‘Indian’ mascot since 1964.

There is one thing that we can agree with the Washington football team about – the name ‘Redsk*ns’ is a reflection of the team’s legacy and history. Unfortunately, the team’s legacy and history is an ugly one, rooted in racism and discrimination, including the origins of the team’s name. It is becoming more and more obvious that the team’s legacy on racial equality is to remain on the wrong side of history for as long as possible.

The team’s original owner, George Preston Marshall, named the team the ‘Redsk*ns’ in 1932, just months before he led a 13-year league wide ban on African American players in the NFL. Nearly 30 years after the race-based name was chosen, Marshall was forced by the league to hire the team’s first black player in 1962. He was the last NFL owner to do so.

We’ve released this report and have a firm position on this issue because the welfare and future of our youth is at stake. We are working every day to ensure they are able to grow up and thrive in healthy, supportive communities. Removing these harmful mascots is just one part of our effort to encourage our children to achieve their greatest potential. We’re focused on their future; these mascots keep society focused on the negative stereotypes of the past.

NCAI calls on the NFL, other professional sports leagues, and all associated businesses to end the era of harmful ”Indian” mascots.”

The report details a range of issues: the harm stereotypes have on Native Youth and the overwhelming support for ending harmful mascots by organizations, tribal governments, the NCAA, high schools, community groups, and individuals. The report also reviews in depth the well-documented legacy of racism in the Washington football team’s history, including factual rebuttals to the Washington football team’s false claims that NCAI leadership at one point endorsed the use of the “Redsk*ns” mascot.

The report points to the fact that harmful “Indian” mascots exist while Native peoples remain targets of hate crime higher than any other groups, citing Department of Justice analysis that “American Indians are more likely than people of other races to experience violence at the hands of someone of a different race.” The report also reviews in-depth studies that show the harm negative stereotypes and “Indian” sports mascots have on Native youth. The rate of suicide is highest for Native young people at 18 percent, twice the rate of the next highest of 8.4 percent among non-Hispanic white youth.

In the report, NCAI calls on the NFL, MLB, and NHL to address harmful mascots that profit from marketing harmful stereotypes, “Each of these professional sports businesses attempt to establish a story of honoring Native peoples through the names or mascots; however, each one—be it through logos or traditions — diminishes the place, status, and humanity of contemporary Native citizens. What is true about many of the brand origin stories is that team owners during the birth of these brands hoped to gain financially from mocking Native identity. As a result, these businesses perpetuated racial and political inequity. Those who have kept their logos and brands, continue to do so.”

About The National Congress of American Indians:
Founded in 1944, the National Congress of American Indians is the oldest, largest and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization in the country. NCAI advocates on behalf of tribal governments and communities, promoting strong tribal-federal government-to-government policies, and promoting a better understanding among the general public regarding American Indian and Alaska Native governments, people and rights. For more information visit www.ncai.org

NCAI Letter to National Indian Gaming Commission re: Bay Mills Vanderbilt Casino

September 11, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

NCAI Letter to NIGC re Michigan v Bay Mills

An excerpt:

We have reviewed the NIGC legal opinion dated December 10, 2010 asserting that NIGC has no jurisdiction over the disputed Vanderbilt casino because it is not on Indian lands. We respectfully request that you reconsider that legal opinion in order to avoid the “irony” and unnecessary legal dilemma that the Supreme Court intends to resolve. Although the NIGC authority to approve tribal gaming ordinances may be limited to Indian country (AT&T v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 283 F. 3d 1156 (9th Cir., 2002)), IGRA is structured to authorize the NIGC to take final agency action regarding Indian gaming operating outside of Indian country. Bay Mills maintains that it is operating the Vanderbilt facility pursuant to a NIGC approved tribal ordinance within the authority of IGRA. IGRA authority lies clearly within the NIGC to assess the validity of Bay Mills’ claim.

The NIGC disclaimed jurisdiction over the Vanderbilt casino here. See also, Interior’s letter.

Guest Post — Keeping a Close Eye on Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (Jefferson Keel and John Echohawk)

September 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Keeping a Close Eye on Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (Jefferson Keel and John Echohawk):

Since it was established in 2001, the National Congress of American Indians and the Native American Rights Fund have jointly coordinated the work of the Tribal Supreme Court Project. The Project was established by tribal leaders in response to a series of devastating losses for Indian tribes before the Supreme Court of the United States. As you may recall, tribes were losing 3 out of every 4 Indian law cases argued before the Court and resulted in decisions significantly eroding the doctrine of inherent tribal sovereignty. Our work has focused on coordinating tribal resources throughout Indian country and bringing the best legal minds to the table to develop litigation strategies to put forward the strongest legal arguments when litigation could not be avoided. But our message to tribes became and remains: “Stay away from the Supreme Court!”

During its early years, the Project experienced relative success with tribes increasing their winning percentage to greater than 50%—winning 4, losing 3, and 2 draws in the 9 Indian law cases heard by the Rehnquist Court. But since 2005, with the installment of John Roberts as Chief Justice, the retirement of Justices O’Connor, Souter and Stevens, the tribes winning percentage has plummeted to 10%—with 1 win and 9 losses in the 10 Indian law cases heard by the Roberts Court. And neither Chief Justice Roberts nor Justice Alito has voted in favor of tribal interests in a single case!

With this background, we recently read the State of Michigan’s opening brief in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community–a case granted review by the Court even though the United States had filed a brief recommending that cert be denied. Although this litigation should be about the merits of Bay Mills’ claims under the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act to conduct gaming on lands acquired with settlement funds—it is not. In its current posture before the Court, the State of Michigan is using this case to mount a full frontal attack on tribal sovereign immunity and the authority of states to regulate “gaming activity” under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).

First, Michigan asks the Court to examine “IGRA as a whole” to find Congressional intent to waive of tribal sovereign immunity or, in the alternative, to overrule Santa Clara Pueblo and apply a “less strict standard” when considering whether legislation such as IGRA abrogates tribal sovereign immunity. Second, if the statutory arguments are not successful, Michigan asks the Court to recognize that tribal sovereign immunity “is a federal common law doctrine” created by this Court and subject to adjustment by this Court. Thus, according to Michigan, the Court should narrowly read Kiowa as a “contract-based ruling” and (at the extreme) hold that a tribe’s immunity is limited to its on-reservation governmental functions.

With the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity and the authority of states under IGRA on the table, this case has become high-stakes litigation for Indian tribes across the country. Although Bay Mills and other tribes have solid legal arguments to make to the Court, the optics and politics of this case do not bode well for a good outcome. The last time the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity was before the Court was in Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York back in 2010. Madison County, the State of New York and other local governments had filed briefs taking aggressive approaches similar to the State of Michigan. Their positions were supported by a number of other states, local governments and non-Indian property rights organizations as amicus parties. In response to similar concerns expressed here, the Oneida Indian Nation passed a resolution which irrevocably waived its sovereign immunity and resulted in the Court vacating and remanding the case to the lower courts for further proceedings on the merits. Although that result may be difficult to replicate, our hope is that the on-going efforts by the Bay Mills Indian Community to find an alternative resolution to this case, or at least change the posture of this case before the Court, will bear fruit.

To repeat our message to all tribes: “Stay away from the Supreme Court!”