Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Jim, a case arising on the Navajo Reservation.
Navajo Nation
Navajo Nation Council Attacks on Navajo Judiciary?
Here are three competing press releases from various branches of Navajo government (two of three, as Paul notes below):
Navajo Judiciary Committee on Court Reform
Navajo Office of Legislative Counsel Opinion on Pres. Shirley’s Effort to Run for a Third Term
Here it is: CLC0110
And here is news coverage of President Shirley’s announcement he’s running for a third term by relying on Dine Fundamental Law.
Navajo Allottees’ Trespass Suit against Federal Government and Public Utilities Fails
Here is the lengthy opinion in Begay v. Public Service Co. of New Mexico et al. (D. N.M.): Begay DCT Order
An excerpt:
Because the claims against the Federal Defendants are not ripe for review and because the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action individually or as a class, the Court will grant the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because the Plaintiffs fail to allege a claim upon which relief can be granted under their constructive trust theory, the Court will grant El Paso Corporation’s motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12(b)(6). Because the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has exclusive jurisdiction over claims involving interstate gas line pipelines, the Court will also grant Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC’s motion to dismiss regarding ejectment, removal of pipeline and trespass. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice.
Tenth Circuit Upholds Uranium Mining Leases in Navajo Indian Country
Dine Fundamental Law Survives Another Day
From the Santa Fe New Mexican via Pechanga:
WINDOW ROCK, Ariz. (AP) — Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. has vetoed legislation that he contends limits the Navajo way of life.
Lawmakers voted last month to amend a set of laws based on the tribe’s centuries-old traditional values and customs. Under the measure, any dispute regarding the validity, application or interpretation of Dine (Din-EH’) Fundamental Law would not be heard in Navajo courts but be resolved consensually through peacemaking.
Shirley struck down the measure last week, saying the laws protect and preserve the Navajo way of life and what makes the tribal government unique. He also says the council’s vote was politically motivated.
Lawmakers can override the veto with 59 votes, representing two-thirds of the 88-member Tribal Council.
New Scholarship on Williams v. Lee
Dewi I. Ball has posted “Williams v. Lee (1959) – 50 years later: A Re-assessment of One of the Most Important cases in the Modern-era of Federal Indian Law” on BEPress (download here). Here is the abstract:
It is 50 years since the landmark decision of Williams v. Lee was handed down by Justice Hugo Lafayette Black and the United States Supreme Court. At the time, the case was a watershed event that signified the legal resurgence of Native America in Federal Indian law and in particular, the renaissance of the Indian sovereignty doctrine, inherent tribal sovereignty and the principles of Worcester v. Georgia. There can be no doubt that the eloquently constructed opinion by Hugo Black brought positive news for all Native Americans, especially in light of the process of Termination that was being pursued by Congress and the United States President. However, against this nascent sense of renewal and hope, the Williams case also began what became an insidious trend in the decision-making process of the U.S. Supreme Court; the weakening of the Indian sovereignty doctrine and some of the key attributes of tribal power; namely civil, criminal and taxation authority. Much of the academic literature in the field of Federal Indian law and Native American studies points to the importance of the Williams case as one which strengthened Native American sovereignty but other academics, from the 1990s, have questioned whether the case was an overall success for the authority of Native Americans on their reservations in the complexity of what is Federal Indian law. Although this article will analyze the re-affirmation of the Indian sovereignty doctrine and inherent tribal sovereignty in the Williams opinion, through the use of archival materials from the private papers of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, it will also be the first article in Native American studies to examine behind the scenes discussions and processes used in the Williams case and argue that the weakening of the Indian sovereignty doctrine began in 1959.
Scholarship on this case is burgeoning. Hon. Raymond Austin’s book “Navajo Courts and Navajo Common Law” touches upon the case from the point of view of the Navajo Nation government, which treated it as a kind of test case.
This work parses through the papers of Justice Brennan for an inside look at how the Court decided the case. A sobering work well worth reading.
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.
Navajo Voters Approve Referendum Reducing Size of Council and Granting Presidential Veto Power
From the Navajo Times:
If he were a gambling man, this would be the week for President Joe Shirley Jr. to buy a lottery ticket.
Navajo Nation voters overwhelmingly supported his government reform initiatives including a question to reduce the membership of the Navajo Nation Council, just one day after a Window Rock District Court judge rescued Shirley from a two-month-long forced leave imposed Oct. 26 by the council.
“I am very happy for the people,” Shirley said Tuesday night at the Window Rock Sports Center, where election results were posted along the wall as they came in from the chapters. “I’ve always said this is their initiative, their money, their laws. They put the initiatives in the books. This is history in the making.”
Navajo District Court Decision Striking Down Law that Ousted Chairman Shirley
Here is the opinion from the Window Rock District Court in Office of the Navajo Nation President and Vice President v. Navajo Nation Council:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.