Here.
Salon: Hillary Clinton’s Legacy as Secretary of State Rests on Conclusion to Keystone Oil Pipeline
Here.
Here.
Here is the opinion and materials in Buxton v. United States (D. S.D.):
Here is the opinion in New v. United States:
From The Rapid City Journal:
Acknowledging widespread dissatisfaction with public-safety management on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, the Oglala Sioux Tribe Judiciary Committee and other tribal leaders met Thursday with Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel to discuss changes that could put the OST Department of Public Safety under BIA control once again. Continue reading
Here are the materials in Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Salazar:
As reported on Indianz….
Here are some of the relevant materials in this issue:
ALLTEL – GONZALES FIRM BRIEF FILED IN COURT (4-13-11).7
Here is the opinion in In re the Parental Responsibilities of S.M.J.C.
An excerpt:
In this allocation of parental rights proceeding, the Oglala Sioux Tribe (the Tribe), acting through the Oglala Nation Tiospaye Resource Advocacy Center (ONTRAC), appeals from the order denying its motion to dismiss the proceeding pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a), or, in the alternative, transfer the proceeding to the Tribe’s tribal court pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b). We conclude that the record does not support the trial court’s finding that the child had been abandoned, and thus, the record does not support the court’s determination that the child’s domicile was that of his caregiver rather than that of his custodial parent. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Here is the opinion in In re D.W.
The Court’s first holding:
The “clear and convincing” standard appears to be the better-reasoned approach. It is consistent with both the congressional intent in adopting ICWA and this Court’s precedent. Therefore, we conclude that deviations from the ICWA placement preferences require a showing of good cause by clear and convincing evidence.
And the second:
Aside from Girlfriend, neither DSS nor the Tribe located another viable placement option within the ICWA preferences. DSS explored placement options for over three and a half years, during which time Child was without a permanent home environment. The circuit court was within its discretion to determine that a diligent search had been performed and that a suitable ICWApreferred placement could not be found. See BIA Guidelines, 44 Fed. Reg. 67584, ¶ F.3. The court’s findings of fact support its conclusion that at least one of the factors indicating good cause to deviate from the ICWA placement preferences existed in this case. Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding by clear and convincing evidence that good cause existed to place Child outside the ICWA placement preferences.
Here are the briefs in O’Bryan v. United States:
Lower court materials are here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.