Navajo Nation

Another Chance to Oppose the Arizona Gun Bill

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ya’a’teeh abini,

Please be advised that the AZ governor has the state gun bill (SB 1610)before her to sign or to veto. I urge you to contact her and urge her not to sign the bill into law.

The honoring of any gun is offensive to Native Americans. Guns were used to kill Native Americans and take everything that belong to them. They were used to put Native Americans on reservations.

Please get involved. Here’s the contact info:
Honorable Jan Brewer
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007

1-602-542-4331
1-800-253-0883

Easiest contact: http://www.azgovernor.gov

Thank you. Have a nizhoniful day.
Ahbihay aka Representative Albert Hale

Arizona Senate Bill 1610 — Makes the Colt .45 the State’s Official Firearm — Used to Kill Navajo People

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here’s the article on the approval of the bill.

Here is the Arizona Dems Press Release from a few days ago:

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – House Minority Whip Anna Tovar released the following statement today on making the Colt Action Army Revolver the official state firearm (SB 1610), which passed the House and will be sent to the governor:

“Another day, another waste of taxpayers’ time and money at the state capitol. My family owns guns, and I’m embarrassed that state government chose to spend hours on a state gun — even brought it back on reconsideration after it was defeated — instead of changing one word in statute to ensure 20,000 Arizonans’ jobless aid isn’t cut off during tough times. This is absolutely ridiculous and offensive, and it’s even more humiliating that the weapon they chose isn’t even manufactured in Arizona . It’s time for a change.”

Continue reading →

Damages Claim under Navajo Treaty “Bad Men” Clause Fails

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Pablo v. United States (Ct. Cl.):

DCT Order Granting Govt Motion for Summary J

Govt Motion for Summary J

Pablo Response

Govt Reply

Navajo Chamber of Commerce Formed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the article from the Navajo Times.

H/T to V.H.

Navajo & Laguna Pueblo Amicus Brief in U.S. v. Jicarilla

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here: NN-POL amicus brief

New Book on Navajo Tribal Labor Relations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

David Kamper has published “The Work of Sovereignty: Tribal Labor Relations and Self-Determination at the Navajo Nation.” Here is the book’s website.

And the description:

Who is shaping the future of economic development in Indian Country? Who has a say in tribal economic growth and who benefits? What role do American Indian workers play in shaping how tribal economies and enterprises work? What would it mean to conceive of indigenous self-determination from the vantage point of work and workers? The Work of Sovereignty addresses these vital questions. It explores the political, economic, and cultural forces that structure and influence indigenous economic development, giving special attention to the perspectives and priorities of the indigenous working people who build tribal futures with their everyday labor. Kamper argues for the importance of recognizing tribal labor relations as a factor in indigenous economic enterprises from gaming to health care and beyond. Although most research on tribal sovereignty and economic development focuses on legal theory and governmental operations, The Work of Sovereignty centers on the people who make sovereignty work. It presents a thoughtful, in-depth look at the ways labor relations play out in Indian Country, how tribal employees view their relationships with their bosses and tribal enterprises, and how this view connects to their enactment of indigenous self-determination.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Sentencing Modification of Navajo Man

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the court’s opinion in United States v. Begay.

US Must Defend under Federal Tort Claim Act Tribal Police Officer Torts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Garcia v. United States (D. Ariz.): Garcia v US

The court rejected the government’s motion for summary judgment, on grounds that the Navajo police officer (who struck a killed the plaintiff while driving under the influence) was working in the scope of work of a 638 contract.

 

D.C. Circuit Refuses to Allow Judicial Review of Government Decision Not to Remediate Uranium Contamination

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. United States.

Excerpts:

This case concerns two sites on Navajo tribal lands that the Navajo Nation alleges were contaminated by World War II and Cold War era uranium mining. Pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation and Control Act (UMTRCA), which created a mechanism to cleanup after such activities,  the Navajo Nation asked the Department of Energy to remediate both sites. The department refused, and the district court declined to review that decision, relying on a provision of UMTRCA stating that “designations made, and priorities established, by the Secretary under this section shall be final and not subject to judicial review.” For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.

And:

Finally, we address two concerns raised at oral argument by counsel for the Navajo Nation. First, he urged us to employ the canon of statutory  interpretation directing courts to liberally construe statutes in favor of Native Americans.Recording of Oral Arg. at 15:48–16:10; Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759, 766 (1985). This canon, however, has force only where a statute is ambiguous,  id.;Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1439, 1444–45(D.C. Cir. 1988), and as we have explained, section 7912(d), read in light of UMTRCA’s other provisions, is unambiguous.In addition, even were section 7912(d) ambiguous, the presumption applies only to statutes “passed for the benefit of dependent Indian tribes.” Alaska Pac. Fisheries Co. v. United States, 248 U.S. 78, 89 (1918) (interpreting the scope of land included in a reservation created by congressional act); see also San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 1306, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (noting that “[w]e have found no case in which the Supreme Court applied this principle of pro-Indian construction when resolving the ambiguity in a statute of general application.”). Here, UMTRCA’s statement of purpose reveals that Congress passed the statute to protect public health in general rather than tribal health in particular.See  § 7901(b) (“The purposes of this chapter are to . . . minimize or eliminate radiation health hazards to the public[.]”).

Murder Conviction of Navajo Man Reinstated by Ninth Circuit En Banc Panel

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in United States v. Begay (8-3).

The panel decision that vacated a first-degree murder conviction for insufficiency of evidence of premeditation is here.

The three judges that dissented from the reversal, under Judge Reinhardt’s byline, write:

This is a case in which there is no conflict among circuits, no intra-circuit conflict, and no issue of national importance.The court went en banc not over any legal issue, but only to decide whether a few specific facts identified in the majority opinion were sufficient to warrant a finding of premeditation.A similar combination of facts is not likely to occur again in a future case, especially as there are few federal murder cases—this one happened on an Indian reservation—and even fewer in which the question whether the murder was first- or second-degree hinges exclusively on whether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove premeditation. Nevertheless, a majority of this court decided that it was worthy of en banc review when the three-judge panel found that the prosecution had failed to prove murder in the first as opposed to  second degree. Because I disagree with the majority that the minimal facts that it sets forth in its opinion are sufficient to establish premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever reasonable inferences may be drawn, I dissent.