Here are the materials in United States v. Vanderwalker (D. S.D.):
Rosebud Sioux Tribe
South Dakota Supreme Court Dismisses ICWA Appeal by Parents for Failure to Serve Notice on Intervening Tribes
Here is the opinion in In re B.C.
Challenge to Tribal Implementation of SORNA Rejected
The case is United States v. Lafferty, out of the District of South Dakota. The defendant was convicted in Indian Country of a sex crime, and now argues that since the Rosebud Sioux Tribe allegedly has not implemented its sex offender registry system, he should be let off the hook for failing to register. Not so, says the court.
Brian Sawers on Tribal Land Corporations
Brian Sawers (Harvard Econ) has posted “Tribal Land Corporations: Using Incorporation to Combat Fractionalism” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Allotment has not provided individual Indians with economic opportunity; instead it has weakened tribal structures and shrunk the tribal land base. The administrative burden is significant, absorbing Federal monies that could be used elsewhere in Indian Country. In addition, transaction costs inhibit economic development and depress the returns to individual Indians. Congress has attempted to reduce fractionation through regulating devise and descent. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has set off-limits the quickest mechanism for consolidating land ownership. However, any consolidation program that relies solely on inheritance will take decades to reduce fractionation.
Instead, tribes should rely on the incorporation and eminent domain to consolidate ownership and control of allotted lands in a tribal enterprise. Interests in allotted lands can be exchanged for shares in the TLC, limited the cost of formation. Eminent domain should be used to prevent uneven tender and quickly expand to an efficient scale. Since funds are limited, compensation for the taking of allotted interests should be interest of equivalent value in other parcels. The Rosebud TLE is just such a TLC, although with several structural defects imposed by the OIA. Even with weak shareholder control, the incentives facing the TLC are closer to the individual Indians than the BIA. Economic theory suggests that the TLC should provide better management of trust land.
Very interesting. My recollection is that one of the purposes of an IRA Section 17 corporation was to do exactly this.
Duwyenie v. Moran — Arizona COA Case Involving Parallel Tribal and State Custody Actions
Unusual case, involving what likely was the kidnapping of an Indian child in a child custody squabble originating in Arizona. One parent removed the child to South Dakota and initiated proceedings in the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court after Arizona state court proceedings had begun. The other parent initiated tribal court proceedings on the same matter in Gila River Tribal Court, which was a smart move, since the tribal courts talked to each other, leading the RSTC to dismiss its part of the case and admonish the parent who (likely) kidnapped the child.
Here is the opinion.
Eighth Circuit Favors Indian Claimants in Voting Rights Act Case
The case is Cottier v. City of Martin, South Dakota.
Here is the opinion — cottier-v-city-of-martin-ca8-opinion2
And the briefs — city-of-martin-brief and cottier-brief
NYTs Article on Tribal Wind Power Projects
From the NYTs:
ROSEBUD, S.D. — The wind blows incessantly here in the high plains; screen doors do not last. Wind is to South Dakota what forests are to Maine or beaches are to Florida: a natural bounty and a valuable inheritance.
Native American tribes like the Rosebud Sioux now seek to claim that inheritance. If they succeed in building turbine farms to harness some of the country’s strongest and most reliable winds, tribal officials like Ken Haukaas believe, they could create a new economic underpinning for the 29,000 tribal members whose per capita annual income is about $7,700, less than a third the national average.
“We’re broke here,” Mr. Haukaas said. “We’re poor.” But, he added: “The wind is free. There’s energy here all the time.”
U.S. v. Tools, South Dakota District Court
Lay advocates in tribal court do not trigger Sixth amendment rights, since they are not a “licensed professional attorney[s]”:
Thus, the issue before the court is whether a tribal public defender, who is not a licensed professional attorney but who appears in tribal court, is “counsel” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment.
The court found that s/he was not.
District Court Judge on Tribal Cops at Rosebud
Indianz reports that the district court judge in South Dakota will adopt the report and recommendation of the Magistrate in United States v. Erickson (dct-order-adopting-rr-in-erickson-case). Here are the rest of the materials.
US v. Erickson — Denial of Motion to Suppress Based on Violation of Tribal Law
Here are the materials, in a case involving actions of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s law enforcement as arresting officers:
us-response-to-erickson-motion-to-suppress
supplement-to-motion-to-suppress
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.