Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. Granholm

SCIT Release on Boundaries Settlement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the SCIT page:

SETTLEMENT RECOGNIZES TREATY BOUNDARIES

November 8, 2010

The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal Council today approved settlement of a suit it filed in federal court seeking recognition of the Isabella Indian Reservation. The settlement will ask the federal court to recognize the boundaries of the Isabella Indian Reservation established by the treaties of 1855 and 1864 and comprised of five full and two half townships in Isabella County.

According to Tribal Chief, Dennis V. Kequom Sr., the Tribe is pleased to reach this negotiated settlement with the City and State.

“We are hopeful that the county will join the city and state, and that the court will approve this settlement so that the governments can put this dispute behind them,” said Chief Kequom. “The federal government has also approved the settlement. General counsel for the Tribe, Sean Reed, said that “this settlement clearly recognizes the Tribe’s Reservation boundaries as ‘Indian Country’ and provides certainty with respect to the proper exercise of jurisdiction over Tribal members.”

The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe filed suit against the governor of Michigan, the Michigan attorney general, and the treasurer of the State of Michigan in November of 2005 . The federal government joined with the Tribe in 2006. The city of Mt. Pleasant and Isabella County joined the state of Michigan in the lawsuit in 2007.

The settlement includes several intergovernmental agreements regarding issues of law enforcement, Indian child welfare, taxation, zoning and land use. It is the result of over 20 months of Court facilitated mediation.

Best News of the Day: Saginaw Chippewa Close to Settling Reservation Boundaries Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Indianz:

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has reportedly reached a deal over the boundaries of its reservation in Michigan.

The tribe sued the state to clarify the Indian Country status of the Isabella Reservation. The Department of Justice sided with the tribe and a tentative agreement could end the case, The Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun reported.

“All parties to this case have now reached tentative agreement regarding the terms of a global settlement of all disputes between them in this case,” according to a court filing, the paper reported.

The deal would include the state, Isabella County and the city of Mount Pleasant.

Get the Story:

Tentative deal reached in Tribal suit (The Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun 9/17)

Saginaw Chippewa v. Granholm Update — Court Order on Experts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

SCIT Order on Michigan Experts

An excerpt:

Legal scholars have suggested a variety of solutions to the problems associated with evaluating historical testimony, including the use of neutral, court-appointed experts; requiring the judge, or a special master, to evaluate the primary source data personally; and eliminating the “reliability” prong of the Daubert test. See Maxine D. Goodman,Slipping Through the Gate: Trusting Daubert and Trial Procedures to Reveal the ‘Pseudo-Historian’ Expert Witness and to Enable the Reliable Historian Expert Witness–Troubling Lessons from Holocaust-Related Trials, 60 Baylor L. Rev. 824, 861-73 (2008). Perhaps some of those solutions would provide for more nuanced and reliable historical testimony. In this case, however, a neutral expert was not requested or appointed, the demands of the Court’s docket make independent primary-source research impracticable, and development of a new test for admissibility of historical testimony seems unnecessary. More importantly, the expert opinions provided, while perhaps flawed in some respects, are reasonably reliable and will be helpful in determining the ultimate issue in this case. Consequently, they are admissible under Rule 702, and will be considered and weighed appropriately.

Saginaw Chippewa Reservation Boundaries Dispute Update

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Judge Ludington has granted the motions of the United States and the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe to strike the so-called “Rosebud Sioux” defenses and associated witnesses. Here are the relevant materials.

scit-motion-to-strike-rosebud-defenses

us-motion-to-exclude-rosebud-witnesses

michigan-response-to-motions-to-strike

isabella-county-response-to-motions-to-strike

mount-pleasant-response-to-motions-to-strike

scit-reply-re-motions-to-strike

us-reply-brief-re-motions-to-strike

dct-order-granting-motions-to-strike

Saginaw Chippewa v. Granholm Update — Motions to Certify Case for Interlocutory Appeal Denied

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The City of Mount Pleasant and the County of Isabella had moved the Eastern District of Michigan to certify the earlier decision not to allow the defense of laches for an interlocutory appeal to the Sixth Circuit, but all the other parties (including co-defendant State of Michigan) objected. And so the district court rejected the motions.

city-of-mt-pleasant-motion-for-certification

isabella-county-motion-for-certification

state-of-michigan-opposition-to-motions

us-response-to-motions

sag-chip-response-to-motions

sag-chip-v-granhold-dct-order-on-motion-for-certification

Federal Court Rejects Michigan’s Laches Defenses in Saginaw Chippewa v. Graholm

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

These principles persuade the Court that, as a matter of law, the time-based equitable defenses Defendants wish to advance are inapplicable to the issues here presented and may not otherwise be advanced against the United States’s enforcement of its treaties. Consequently, Defendants may not rely on the time-based equitable defenses of laches, estoppel, acquiescence, or impossibility. In addition, testimony and proofs offered in support of these affirmative defenses are irrelevant. Thus, the United States’s and the Saginaw Chippewa’s motions should be granted.

Continue reading →