Rule 19 – Page 12 – Turtle Talk

Who Won Indian Law and Policy in 2014? First Round Bracket — 3 of 8

January 6, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Now we move to category 2 (sounds like a hurricane) — Doctrines, Laws, and Issues (aka, grabag or miscellaneous). The first four contests there….

# 1 Indian Child Welfare Act

It’s been a big year for ICWA a year after Baby Girl (we miss you so much). The Attorney General announced the Department of Justice’s commitment to the statute, the South Dakota class action filed by the Oglala Sioux Tribe is currently pending after much drama about whether Judge Davis was refusing to disclose evidence, and DOJ intervened as an amicus in an important Alaska case (as well as the South Dakota matter). Alaska will now give full faith and credit to Alaska tribal courts on ICWA matters.

The Virginia SCT issued a split opinion on what parts of state law on best interests are trumped by ICWA here, and the Kentucky Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment the existing Indian family exception (not good, Kentucky). Montana’s Supreme Court issued a few troubling opinions expressing an infatuation with the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl decision.

State courts from around the country published opinions on a wide variety of ICWA subjects: tribal court transfer (Nebraska — that was a good one), father’s rights in contested adoption (Alaska), qualified expert witnesses (Arizona, Alaska), active efforts (Nebraska, Montana), termination of parental rights (Texas), placement preferences (California, and again), truancy (Nebraska), application (Oregon, North Dakota), and notice, notice, notice (Kansas COA, California –three times here, North Carolina COA, Michigan COA, California COA again, Nebraska COA, Michigan COA again

Important-ish unpublished opinions involved ineffective assistance of counsel (Michigan), active efforts (Michigan), burden of proof (Michigan), placement preferences (California), customary adoption (California), and … you guessed it … notice (Michigan COA, California COA, another Michigan COA, and yet another)

You might see a lot of Michigan here (here’s another), and that’s thanks to MIFPA.

#16 Federal Indian law preemption

The Chehalis/Great Wolf Lodge matter from 2013 helped bring federal Indian law preemption back from the dead. The State of Washington was still feeling the consequences this year. The real impact may be in the BIA leasing regulations.

# 8 Rule 19

My favorite FRCP. Lots of Rule 19 action again this year, including a close call at the Supreme Court, which denied cert in the Buena Vista matter. Other cases involved Jamul Indian Village, payday lending cases, and Skokomish.

# 9 Indian country voting rights

Lots of pre-election voting rights activity in South Dakota, and a big win in a voting rights trial in Alaska. And another in Montana.

# 4 Indian gaming

Billions a year for tribal communities. Relentless litigation. Enough said.

# 13 Internet gaming

So far, pretty much nothing for tribal communities.

# 5 Intra-tribal disputes

This is the bad news part of the game.

Chukchansi. Timbisha-Shoshone. Caddo. Paskenta. Cayuga. Meherrin. Oglala Sioux. Pala Band. Saginaw Chippewa. Nooksack. Shingle Springs.

# 12 Human trafficking

Bakken. Circumpolar region.

Tenth Circuit Issues Amended Opinion in Oklahoma v. Hobia

December 23, 2014December 23, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here. Like its earlier decision, today’s amended opinion concludes that the district court erroneously granted the State’s request for a preliminary injunction and held that the State’s complaint, which alleged class III gaming activities on non-Indian lands, failed to state a claim under IGRA.

The Tenth Circuit also reiterated that arbitration provisions in the state’s gaming compact effectively barred Oklahoma from suing tribal officials in federal court for purported violations of the compact. The court remanded the matter to the Northern District of Oklahoma with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and to dismiss Oklahoma’s complaint with prejudice.

Also, the court denied the petition for en banc review.

Panel materials are here.

Motions to Dismiss Pleadings in re: Wolfchild Land Claims

December 19, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials so far in Wolfchild v. Redwood County (D. Minn.):

120 First Amended Complaint

156 Redwood County Motion to Dismiss

164 Landowners Motion to Dismiss

165 Lower Sioux Community Motion to Dismiss

168 Episcopal Diocese Motion to Dismiss

185 Wolfchild Opposition

189 Lower Sioux Reply

190 Landowners Reply

191 Episcopal Diocese Reply

192 Redwood County Reply

D.C. Circuit Rejects Bid by Buena Vista Rancheria to Intervene in Challenge to Trust Acquisition

December 2, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Amador County v. Dept. of Interior.

An excerpt:

In 2005, Amador County, California brought suit against the Department of Interior challenging the Secretary’s approval of a gaming compact between the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians (the “Tribe”) and the State of California. After nearly six-and-a-half years of litigation, the Tribe sought to intervene for the limited purpose of moving to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. The district court denied the motion as untimely, and this appeal followed. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Friends of Amador County v. Jewell

December 1, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the order list.

Cert stage briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

Friends of Amador County v. Jewell a Petition to Watch for This Week’s SCT Conference

November 20, 2014November 20, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Friends of Amador County v. Jewell
14-340
Issue: Whether, in an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., a putative Indian tribe may invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary’s decision to recognize it as a tribe.

We posted on this matter here.

Also, the petition was yesterday’s petition of the day.

Friends of Amador County v. Jewell Cert Stage Briefs

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

FAC Cert Petition

Buena Vista Rancheria Opposition

FAC Reply

Question presented:

Whether, in an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., a putative Indian tribe may invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary’s decision to recognize it as a tribe.

Lower court materials here.