Oneida Nation

New Book by Rebecca Webster: “In Defense of Sovereignty”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

You can buy it here.

In Defense of Sovereignty
Protecting the Oneida Nation’s Inherent Right to Self-Determination
Rebecca M. Webster
Foreword by Richard Monette
With contributions by James R. Bittorf, William Gollnick, Frederick E. Hoxie, Arlinda F. Locklear, and James W. Oberly
“This valuable book lays out the features of a legal and political strategy to defend a reservation boundaries case. This material is thrilling where tribal citizens detail their ongoing, real-world struggles with the Village of Hobart. Successful and compelling.”
—Matthew L. M. Fletcher, author of Ghost Road: Anishinaabe Responses to Indian-Hating

A nuanced history by an Oneida Nation citizen directly involved in the litigation

The Oneida Nation has been engaged in legal conflicts to retain its sovereignty and its lands since forced removals in the 1820s from New York to what would become the state of Wisconsin. Legal scholar Rebecca M. Webster examines this history, including the nation’s treaties with the US and focusing especially on its relationship with the village of Hobart, Wisconsin. Since 2003, six disputes have led to litigation—the result of attempts by the local government to regulate the nation, repudiate its sovereignty, and relegate its government to the position of a common landowner, subject to municipal authority.

In Defense of Sovereignty shares the perspective of a nation citizen directly involved in the litigation, augmented by contributions from historians, attorneys, and a retired nation employee. It is an intimate and unflinching account of the impact of these jurisdictional battles and what is at stake for the future. Its lucid analysis is an invaluable contribution to public debates about the inherent right of Indigenous nations to continue to exist and exercise self-governance within their territories without being challenged at every turn.
 Rebecca Webster. Photo credit, Stephanie Stevens.Rebecca M. Webster, an assistant professor in the American Indian studies department at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, is a former senior staff attorney for the Oneida Nation.

Tribal Defendants/Intervenors Brief in Haaland v. Brackeen

Kate Fort

Merits brief on behalf of the intervening tribes–Cherokee Nation, Oneida Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Navajo Nation–in the Haaland v. Brackeen Supreme Court case.

IntervenorTribeBrief

Pace yourself–she’s a long one.

Briefing Completed in Brackeen v. Bernhardt (frmly Zinke) in the Fifth Circuit [ICWA Case]

Kate Fort

Oral arguments are March 13.

Principal Briefs on the Tribal Defendant/Intervenor and Federal Side (Pro-ICWA)

Appellant Tribes Brief

Appellant Federal Parties

Navajo Nation Motion to Intervene and Proposed Brief

Amicus Briefs, Pro-ICWA

Congressional Amicus Brief

Constitutional Law Profs Brief

Casey Family Programs and Thirty Child Welfare Organizations Amicus Brief

21 State Attorneys General Amicus Brief

Indian Law Scholars Amicus Brief

325 Tribal Governments and 57 Tribal Organizations Amicus Brief

Prof. Ablavsky Amicus Brief

UKB Amicus Brief

Native American Women’s Amicus Brief

Principal Briefs on the State and Individual Plaintiff side (Anti-ICWA)

AppelleeStateBrief

IndividualPlaintiffBrief

Amicus Briefs (Anti-ICWA)

ChristianAllianceAmicus

ProjectonFairRepresentationAmicus

Goldwater Cato AAAA Amicus

OhioAmicusBrief

Reply Briefs by Tribal Intervenors and Federal Government

Appellant Tribes’ Reply Brief

Federal Reply Brief

Intervenor Navajo Nation Reply Brief

 

Merits and Amicus Briefs Filed in Brackeen et al v. Zinke et al. Yesterday

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Multiple parties and amici filed strong briefs in the Brackeen v. Zinke case in the Fifth Circuit yesterday. Twenty-one state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of the law, as did 325 tribal nations and 57 tribal organizations. 30 child welfare organizations also signed on to the Casey Family Programs “gold standard” brief. Law professors from more than 20 law schools signed on to the three law professor amicus briefs.

Appellee states and individual plaintiffs will file theirs by February 6. Oral arguments are expected the week of March 11.

Merits

Four Intervening Party Tribes

Federal Appellant Brief

Amicus Briefs

Constitutional Law Professors Amicus Brief

Congressional Amicus Brief

Casey Family Programs and Thirty Child Welfare Organizations

21 State Attorneys General

Indian Law Scholars

325 Tribal Governments and 57 Tribal Organizations Amicus Brief

Prof. Ablavsky Amicus Brief

Women’s Brief

UKB Brief

Statement from the Four Intervening/Appellant Tribes on the Stay of the Texas v. Zinke Decision

Kate Fort

Joint Tribal Statement re Fifth Circuit Stay 12.3.18

We applaud the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for staying a recent ruling in Texas that struck down the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This stay decision protects children from potential abuse and forced separation from their families.

As a result, tribal families and their children in Texas and Indiana will continue to be protected from the types of abusive child welfare practices that Congress outlawed 40 years ago when it enacted ICWA.

By granting the stay, the protections provided by ICWA will remain in full force pending an appeal of the ruling handed down in October by a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas.

The Cherokee Nation, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Oneida Nation and the Quinault Indian Nation will continue to defend Native children and Native families by advocating for the constitutionality of ICWA by all available means. We strongly believe the ruling holding the Indian Child Welfare Act is unconstitutional was wrong, will ultimately be reversed on appeal, and as a result, the rights of Indian children, families and communities protected by the Indian Child Welfare Act will be affirmed and reinforced.

Four Intervening Tribes in Texas v. Zinke ICWA Case File Notice to Appeal and Motion to Stay in Fifth Circuit

ilpc

New Fifth Circuit page here.

Tribal Motion for Stay Pending Appeal

Finally, the district court’s ruling will cause significant inconsistency throughout the country. As this Court noted in Bryant, when issuing a stay, “[t]he inevitable disruption that would arise from a lack of continuity and stability in this important area of the law” will harm the parties and “the public interest at large.” Id.

Texas v. Zinke Update: Stay Denied; Navajo Nation Files Motion to Intervene

ilpc

In Texas v. Zinke, the ICWA case in the northern district of Texas, the district court judge denied the four intervening defendant tribes’ motion to stay the decision. There has been no stay request filed in the Fifth Circuit nor a notice of appeal.

Navajo Nation filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of appeal.

Statement from Partnership for Native Children explaining the stay is here.

Case page is here, media page is here.