Yakama Nation Prevails over Klickitat County over Indian Country Fireworks Sales

Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Klickitat County (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

3 Motion for TRO

4 Motion to Expedite

8 County Response

10 DCT Order Granting TRO

21 Tribe Motion for Summary Judgment

23 County Response

24 Reply

29 DCT Order

New Student Scholarship on Indian Country Abortion Access

Heidi L. Guzmán has published “Roe on the Rez: The Case for Expanding Abortion Access on Tribal Land” in the Columbia Journal of Race and Law.

Here is the abstract:

While the courts have codified and reaffirmed the right to abortion, some state legislatures have enacted increasingly burdensome restrictions on abortion. In a number of states, there is only one abortion clinic available for thousands of people. This Note explores whether Native American tribes, as sovereigns, may establish holistic reproductive health clinics on tribal land. It analyzes abortion law in Wisconsin under the framework of Public Law 280 jurisprudence to determine that clinics in Indian Country would not be subject to state abortion regulations. This Note also explores the practical implications of a Native-owned-and-operated clinic, and concludes that these clinics would greatly increase access to safe reproductive health care for Native and non-Native people.

Federal Court Grants Habeas Relief to State Prisoner for Crime Committed on Indian Lands [Public Law 280]

Here are the materials in Berry v. Baca (D. Nev.):

1-1 Habeas Petition

7 Nevada Motion to Dismiss

10 DCT Order Granting Motion

13 Motion for Relief from Judgment

18 Nevada Response

22 Reply

23 DCT Order Granting Petition

New Empirical Research on Federal Court Sentencing of Indian Country Defendants

Jeffery T. Ulmer & Mindy S. Bradley have published Punishment in Indian
Country: Ironies of Federal Punishment of Native Americans in Justice Quarterly:

Ulmer Bradley (2018) – Punishment in Indian Country

Here is the abstract:

Native Americans are US citizens, but they are also tribal nationals subject to complex and unique criminal jurisdiction arrangements over Indian lands. Tribal nations typically have tribal court jurisdiction over less serious crimes, but for serious crimes the federal justice system often supersedes tribal authority, exposing Native Americans to more severe punishments. In addition, recent federal programs have attempted to foster greater tribal/federal criminal justice coupling. Yet, examinations of criminal punishment of Native Americans are few, and most are outdated and/or of very limited generalizability. We examine the punishment of Native American defendants in federal court, focusing on 28 federal districts with substantial Indian presence. Using recent US Sentencing Commission data, as well as contextual data from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal courts, we focus on differences in the federal sentencing of Native American defendants, and how these differences are conditioned by indicators of tribal-federal criminal justice coupling.

Federal Court Allows Bishop Paiute Suit against Inyo County re: Tribal Law Enforcement Authority to Proceed

Here are the materials in Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County (E.D. Cal.):

45-1 inyo county mtd

46-1 sheriff mtd

49 opposition

47-1 inyo da mtd

61 dct order

Federal Court Rejects Chemehuevi Tribe Effort to Stop County Interference with Tribal Police

Here are the materials in Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon (C.D. Cal.):

57 Defendants Motion

61-1 Tribe Motion

62 Defendants Response

64 Tribe Motion

68 Defendants Reply

71 Tribe Reply

84 DCT Order