Here is the complaint in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (N.D. Ohio):
Here is a recent list of tribes that have joined the litigation:
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
NYTs: “Shutdown Leaves Food, Medicine and Pay in Doubt in Indian Country”
Here, featuring the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
Consent to Termination of Parental Rights Decision in Michigan Supreme Court
The ICWA Appellate Clinic co-represented the tribe in this case.
This case involves a complicated question of state statute interpretation regarding a voluntary consent to a termination of parental right in the face of a state termination petition. In this case, the dad consented to termination before the termination hearing. The children were later placed in a tribal-approved foster placement, and the dad withdrew his consent to termination. The question was whether dad could do that under Michigan statute.
None of the protections in MCL 712B.15, [mirroring ICWA’s main protections in an involuntary proceeding] which are designed for contested and adversarial proceedings, remains relevant once a parent voluntarily releases his or her rights under MCL 712B.13. When the court accepted Williams’s release, and the proceedings went from adversarial to cooperative, the protections of MCL 712B.15 did not apply.
However, the Court also held,
That is, Williams may withdraw his consent, but because he is still subject to MCL 712B.15, DHHS may refile a termination petition. MCL 712B.15. And, under MCL 712B.13(3), a parent who consents during an involuntary termination proceeding is not entitled to “the return of the Indian child” to him or her.
Instead, the child returns to the position the child was in before his or her parent consented to the termination of parental rights. Williams’s children were in foster care when he consented to the termination of his parental rights, his children will remain in foster care, and Williams will be once again subject to the procedures and protections of MCL 712B.15. DHHS may proceed with its termination case if it chooses, and if DHHS can satisfy the heightened requirements of MCL 712B.15, Williams’s parental rights can be terminated.
Briefing on the case is here.
Michigan COA Rules Former Tribal Official with Criminal Record Not Eligible for State and Local Office
Here is the opinion in Paquin v. City of St. Ignace:
An excerpt:
In light of the foregoing, we hold that the Tribe constitutes a local government and that plaintiff’s employment with the Tribe constituted employment in “local, state, or federal government” for purposes of Const 1963, art XI, § 8. Such a holding does not diminish or undermine the Tribe’s inherent sovereign authority. “[S]tate laws are generally not applicable to tribal Indians on an Indian reservation except where Congress has explicitly provided that state law shall apply.” Huron Potawatomi, Inc v Stinger, 227 Mich App 127, 132; 574 NW2d 706 (1997). In the instant case, no one is seeking to prohibit plaintiff from running for a position in the Tribe or otherwise to interfere in the Tribe’s regulation of its internal matters. Instead, Const 1963, art 11, § 8 is being applied to prohibit plaintiff from running for a position on defendant’s city council. In other words, the constitutional provision is being used to assess the qualification of a potential candidate for a position on the city council of a Michigan municipality, not a position in the Tribe. “The members of the various Indian tribes are citizens of the United States and citizens of the state within which they reside.” Mich United Conservation Clubs v Anthony, 90 Mich App 99, 109; 280 NW2d 883 (1979) (citations omitted). In seeking to run for an elective position in a Michigan city, plaintiff was acting in his capacity as a Michigan citizen rather than a member of the Tribe. As a Michigan citizen, plaintiff is subject to the same laws as other Michigan citizens when seeking to run for an office in a Michigan municipality. See generally, Mescalero Apache Tribe v Jones, 411 US 145, 148-149; 93 S Ct 1267; 36 L Ed 2d 114 (1973) (“Absent express federal law to the contrary, Indians going beyond reservation boundaries have generally been held subject to non-discriminatory state law otherwise applicable to all citizens of the State.”).
“Sault Tribe’s trust land application denied for Lansing casino”
Here.
If anyone has the denial letter, please send it along.
Here it is. And here:
2017-07-24 DOI Cason ltr to Sault Ste. Marie denying mandatory trust acqn
W.D. Michigan Dismisses Tribal Tort Claim Against Sault Ste. Marie Tribe
Here are the briefs and order in the matter of Lesperance v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 16-cv-00232 (W.D. Mich. April 27, 2017):
- Doc. 1 – Petition to Vacate Tribal Appellate Court Decision
- Doc. 6 – Defendant Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians’ Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
- Doc. 16 – Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Her Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Reply to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and Request for Oral Argument
- Doc. 21 – Defendant’s Response Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Reply Brief in Support of Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians’ Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
- Doc. 22 – Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in Support of Her Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
- Doc. 27 – Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law Post Oral Argument
- Doc. 30 – Opinion
Update — tribal court opinions:
Friday Job Announcements
Job vacancies are posted on Friday. Some announcements might still appear throughout the week. If you would like your Indian law job posted on Turtle Talk, please email indigenous@law.msu.edu.
Wisconsin Judicare Inc.
Staff Attorney, Wasau, WI. Wisconsin Judicare’s Indian Law Office has an opening beginning February 1st for an attorney to represent Native American individuals and groups on a variety of issues including criminal defense representation in tribal courts and Indian law litigation in tribal and state courts.
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Tribal Attorney-Assistant Prosecutor. Responsible for prosecuting criminal, juvenile, landlord-tenant, and Indian child welfare cases in state court. The Tribal Attorney – Assistant Prosecutor is also responsible for assisting and providing back-up coverage for the Tribal Attorney – ACFS on Indian Child Welfare matters in the state courts.
Havasupai Tribe
In-house General Counsel. The Havasupai Tribe, located in the Grand Canyon region of Arizona, is seeking a full-time in-house general counsel set up a tribal office in either Phoenix or Flagstaff. The job requires frequent trips to Supai, Arizona. All applicants must have at least 3 years experience working for tribal governments in areas other than gaming. Applicants should submit a letter of interest, a relevant writing sample and resume to: office@mvicklaw.com
Choctaw Nation
Executive Director of Legal & Compliance. Will report to the Senior Executive Officer of the Legal and Compliance Division. Responsible for the management of the CNO In-House Legal Department in its entirety. This position will coordinate with the Senior Executive Officer and outside counsel on all legal matters, will manage internal case management, and the delegation of assignments to In-House Associate Counsel and personnel.
Eastern Shoshone Tribe
Attorney General. Responsible for providing legal advice and counsel to the Eastern Shoshone Tribal government, its departments and enterprises; and represents the Eastern Shoshone Tribe in all matters at issue before federal, state and tribal courts. The Attorney General serves as the Director for the Office of Attorney General.
Federal Bankruptcy Court Holds Sault Tribe Didn’t Waive Immunity
Earlier, the federal district court had held the federal bankruptcy act doesn’t abrogate tribal sovereign immunity.
Here are the materials in In re Greektown Holdings LLC (E.D. Mich. Bkrcy.):
Sault Tribe RFP for Appellate Judge
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians seeks qualified licensed attorneys and/or non-attorneys for the position of Appellate Judge in the Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribal Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has the following vacancies to fill:
- Licensed attorney positions –(active & reserve)
- Elder position (active & reserve)
The Appellate Court meets monthly. Oral argument is held in Sault Ste. Marie, MI.
Appeals filed vary from year to year, but typically can be anywhere from 1 – 4 per year.
These positions include a $200 per month stipend (if not employed by the tribe). Licensed attorney positions are also paid at the rate of $150 per hour with a maximum billing of $5,000 per year.
Qualifications for Licensed Attorney positions include:
- Must be a member of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
- Must be a member in good standing with the State Bar of Michigan
Qualifications for Elder (attorney or non-Attorney) position include:
- Must be a member of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
- Must be age 60 or older
- If an attorney, must be a member in good standing with the State Bar of Michigan
To further be considered for these positions, Applicants should be able to demonstrate that they have:
- Substantial education and experience working with Tribal, State and Federal law
- Extensive knowledge in juvenile, criminal and child welfare proceedings
- Knowledge and understanding of the history and traditions of the Sault Tribe
A letter of interest, resume, and application should be submitted to:
Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribal Court Continue reading
Sault Tribe Opening for Assistant Prosecutor
Download announcement and details here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.