Howard L. Brown & Hon. Raymond Austin will soon publish “The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Navajo Preference in Employment Act” in the New Mexico Law Review. Here is a sneak preview: Navajo Preference in EmploymentAct, 40 NMLR 17 (2010).
A very, very timely and important article, especially given the recent Ninth Circuit order and remand in EEOC v. Peabody Coal.
From a DOI Press Release:
See the article here.
For those of you not clued in to the Onion — IT’S FAKE.
New York Times Article on Navajo Nation and environmental news here:
By MIREYA NAVARRO
Published: October 25, 2010
BLUE GAP, Ariz. — For decades, coal has been an economic lifeline for the Navajos, even as mining and power plant emissions dulled the blue skies and sullied the waters of their sprawling reservation.
But today there are stirrings of rebellion. Seeking to reverse years of environmental degradation and return to their traditional values, many Navajos are calling for a future built instead on solar farms, ecotourism and microbusinesses.
“At some point we have to wean ourselves,” Earl Tulley, a Navajo housing official, said of coal as he sat on the dirt floor of his family’s hogan, a traditional circular dwelling.
Mr. Tulley, who is running for vice president of the Navajo Nation in the Nov. 2 election, represents a growing movement among Navajos that embraces environmental healing and greater reliance on the sun and wind, abundant resources on a 17 million-acre reservation spanning Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.
“We need to look at the bigger picture of sustainable development,” said Mr. Tulley, the first environmentalist to run on a Navajo presidential ticket.
Here is the news article.
From NPR (the audio will be available at 6 PM eastern):
In her book Yellow Dirt: An American Story of a Poisoned Land and a People Betrayed, former Los Angeles Times reporter Judy Pasternak documents the toxic legacy of uranium mining in the Navajo lands of northeastern Arizona, where radioactive dust wound up in Navajo homes and drinking water.
Some of you might remember this case — the Ninth Circuit’s opinion affirming the death sentence was a big part of the discussion at the FBA Indian Law Conference three years back — US v Mitchell CA9 Opinion.
Here is the district court order on habeas review: Order Denying Mitchell Habeas Relief
The Federal Death Penalty Act, 18 USC 3598, requires federal prosecutors to seek tribal concurrence on the death penalty before seeking the sentence for Indian country crime committed by tribal members. So the Ashcroft Dept. of Justice sought the death penalty under a different jurisdictional statute, and successfully avoided the tribal concurrence provision.
Here is the Utah Supreme Court’s opinion in the Adoption of A.B. and D.T.
An excerpt:
In this case, the Nation’s original notice of appeal was defective. Even though it was filed within fifteen days of the adoption order and signed by the Nation’s counsel, the notice of appeal did not contain the Nation’s signature. And the Nation did not acquire the additional fifteen days to correct the deficiency because the Nation’s counsel did not file a certification of diligent search.
emphasis added
Here is the opinion in U.S. v. Begay.
An excerpt:
Defendants argue that SORNA did not require them toupdate their registration with the State of Arizona while they were residing in the Navajo Nation, and that they could notupdate their registration with the Navajo Nation because it had not yet established a sex offender registry. Based on thesepremises, they invoke SORNA’s affirmative defense, which applies when “uncontrollable circumstances prevent[ ] theindividual from complying” with SORNA. 18 U.S.C.§ 2250(b)(1). Alternatively, they argue that if SORNA did require them to update their registration with Arizona, SORNA violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Ex Post Facto Clause.We hold that SORNA required Defendants to update theirregistration with Arizona, and because nothing prevented them from doing so, no “uncontrollable circumstances prevented [them] from complying” with SORNA. Moreover, wehold that this application of SORNA violates neither the Due Process Clause nor the Ex Post Facto Clause. Thus, we affirmthe district court’s denial of Defendants’ motions to dismiss their indictments.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.