Omaha tribe – Turtle Talk

In Solem v. Bartlett, the Court articulated a three-part analysis designed to evaluate whether a surplus land act may have resulted in a diminishment of a federal Indian reservation. See 465 U.S. 463, 470-72 (1984). The Court found that the “statutory language used to open the Indian lands,” “events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act,” and “events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act” are all relevant to determining whether diminishment has occurred.

The questions presented by the petition are:

1. Whether ambiguous evidence concerning the first two Solem factors necessarily forecloses any possibility that diminishment could be found on a de facto basis.

2. Whether the original boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation were diminished following passage of the Act of August 7, 1882.

Lower court materials here.

Omaha Tribe Attorney Job Posting

January 9, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT

POSITION : Assistant Attorney General

SALARY : Negotiable

SUPERVISOR : Attorney General

OPENING DATE : January 9^th, 2015

CLOSING DATE : Until Filled

LOCATION : Tribal Administration Building

SUMMARY: The Assistant Attorney General of the Omaha Tribe provides legal advice, representation, assistance and support to tribal government and its departments and enterprises. The Assistant Attorney General, under the direction and supervision of the Attorney General, represents the Tribe in all aspects of tribal government, including but not limited to, contracts, employment and human resources, law enforcement, Tribal Code development, application of federal laws relating to Tribal agencies and enterprises, federal-state jurisdictional issues, taxation issues, economic issues, hunting and fishing rights, tribal environmental and natural resource law and policy, housing and land issues, social services and enrollment issues.

Continue reading →

Eighth Circuit Rules Omaha Indian Reservation Not Diminished

December 19, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

Based upon the record evidence, the district court in this matter has done just that–accurately discerned the contemporaneous intent and understanding of the 1882 Act. The court carefully reviewed the relevant legislative history, contemporary historical context, subsequent congressional and administrative references to the reservation, and demographic trends, and did so in such a fashion that any additional analysis would only be unnecessary surplus. Ever mindful to “resolve any ambiguities in favor of the Indians,” there is nothing in this case to overcome the “presumption in favor of the continued existence” of the Omaha Indian Reservation. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. at 344 (quotation omitted); Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 985, 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

Omaha Tribe Judge and Prosecutor Postings

October 24, 2014October 24, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Reposting upon request:

1.)

POSITION : Chief Tribal Judge

SALARY : Negotiable

OPENING DATE : September 02, 2014

CLOSING DATE : Until Filled

LOCATION : Omaha Tribal Court

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska

Macy, NE 68039

Continue reading →