Here is the Supreme Court’s January sitting schedule.
Nebraska v. Parker briefs and materials are here.
32 are in, 32 are out. Let’s proceed to the eight remaining in Category 1, Indian nations.
#1 Alaska Native tribes v. #8 Omaha Tribe
The Alaska Natives tribes, my overall top seed, took 95 percent of the first round vote. The Omaha Tribe took 75 percent, easily routing the Kialegee Tribal Town.
#4 Cayuga Indian Nation v. # 12 Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin
All-Haudenosaunee quarterfinal! Cayuga took a narrow victory over the Big Lagoon Rancheria, with 58 percent of the vote. MHA Nation is taking some bad press lately, and the Wisconsin Oneidas wiped the floor with them, taking 77 percent of the vote.
#2 Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. #7 Gun Lake Tribe
All Michigan ‘Shinob quarterfinal. Sault Tribe took 64 percent of the vote over Fond du Lac, and I’m sure it’s not because of their sheer enrollment numbers. Or was it? Gun Lake, which took 2/3 of the vote from the Wind River Tribes, better hope not.
#3 Bay Mills Indian Community v. # 11 Lac Courte Oreilles and other Wisconsin treaty tribes
Bay Mills eked its way out of the first round with 51 percent of the vote over Cowlitz; apparently winning a Supreme Court case isn’t all that impressive compared to a win in federal district court. Huh.
Unlike Sault Tribe, enrollment numbers didn’t help Navajo, which lost handily to the Wisconsin treaty tribes, 63-37. Wisconsin’s not giving up on that treaty case, so stay tuned there.
Here:
Attention – Attorney Position Open
Legal Aid of Nebraska, a law firm providing free civil legal services to low-income persons, seeks an attorney to serve Native American victims of domestic violence in Western Nebraska. Must be admitted to practice in Nebraska or have a Nebraska license pending, and be licensed or willing to become licensed in the Ponca, Winnebago, Omaha and Santee Tribal Courts. This position entails extensive travel throughout panhandle and Cherry counties. Duties will include but will not be limited to: provide assistance to members of the Omaha, Ponca, Santee, and Winnebago and to other Native Americans who are victims of domestic violence primarily residing in the panhandle and Cherry counties. This position entails providing training to law enforcement; making community presentations; conducting outreach to Native American victims of domestic violence; developing culturally appropriate materials providing legal information and information about Legal Aid of Nebraska’s Native American Project and domestic violence; fostering relationships with the Tribes, tribal members, domestic violence agencies and other service providers. The attorney in this position also provides quality and aggressive representation of low-income Native American domestic violence victims who are clients of LAN primarily in state court, and, engages in the day-to-day practice of law according to the priorities and practices set by Legal Aid of Nebraska. Ideal candidate will possess expertise in the area of domestic violence and demonstrate skill in tribal court practice or connection to Native American issues. This is a full-time position requiring a committed individual. Company cell phone and laptop will be provided. Location in Scottsbluff, Nebraska.
Legal Aid of Nebraska offers excellent supervision, training and support, and state-of-the-art technology. Loan assistance repayment may be available assuming eligibility for Legal Aid’s repayment program. Experience-based competitive salary. Excellent benefits package. Please send resume, references, writing sample and cover letter via email to: Muirne Heaney, Legal Aid of Nebraska, Interim Director of Litigation and Advocacy, at mheaney@legalaidofnebraska.com. EOE. Position open until filled.
Annette Farnan
Interim Executive Director
POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT
POSITION : Chief Tribal Judge
SALARY : Negotiable
OPENING DATE : April 21, 2014
CLOSING DATE : May 2, 2014
LOCATION : Omaha Tribal Court
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
Macy, NE 68039
Here is the petition:
Zylena R v. Elise M. Cert Petition
The questions presented:
(1) Whether ICWA prohibits a state court from considering the “best interests of the child” when determining whether “good cause” exists to deny the transfer of an ongoing child welfare case.
(2) Whether ICWA requires a state court to treat a motion to terminate parental rights as a “new proceeding” for purposes of determining whether “good cause” exists to deny the transfer of an ongoing child welfare case.
Turtle Talk 