Here:
Question presented:
Whether the federal government can avoid the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction in an ongoing, comprehensive water adjudication under the McCarran Amendment by asserting defenses based on federal law.
The first petition is here.
Join us for a free webinar hosted by the ABA CRSJ discussing Indian law cases decided by SCOTUS this term. We have a great panel, Erin Doughtery Lynch, Shay Dvoretzky, Matthew Fletcher, Lenny Powell, Pratik Shah, who will discuss the cases and the broader impact on federal Indian law principles.
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023
Time: 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM ET
Register HERE: https://lnkd.in/gZz6YWnJ
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023
Time: 3:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. ET
Format: Free non-CLE Webinar
Sponsor: ABA Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice
The United States Supreme Court decided several Indian law cases this term that touch on fundamental concepts at the core of federal Indian law. This panel, made up, in part, of lawyers who were directly involved in each of these cases on behalf of Indian Tribes, and other lawyers and scholars who will offer a broader perspective, will discuss each of these cases and their impact on broader federal Indian law principles.
Speakers:
Moderator:
Register HERE: https://americanbar.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_lbFcLRxERZqV6JrqtYYOWw
The Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice is the only ABA membership entity solely dedicated to the advancement of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and social justice. We invite you to become involved with critical legal and public policy issues by joining one or more Section committees. You may want to become part of a committee to learn more about developments in a particular issue area. Or you may choose to take a more active role by participating in or organizing specific activities. Whatever your area of interest or specialization, we have a home for you. To get involved, join us here.
Here is the petition in Bird v. Tribal Business Council of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation:
Question presented:
Does inclusion of a mandatory arbitration clause in an Agreement with an Indian Tribe waive the Tribe’s sovereign immunity?
Eighth Circuit materials:
District court materials here.
Please check out “Federal Indian Law as Method,” likely forthcoming in the University of Colorado Law Review. Here is the abstract:
This Essay is written in the shadow of a series of noxious attacks on core principles of federal Indian law, most notoriously Haaland v. Brackeen, a challenge to the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the equal protection challenges, but during oral argument, several judges expressed skepticism that Congressional Indian affairs enactments that grant privileges or preferences to Indian people could survive scrutiny under an equal protection analysis. Justice Kavanaugh, one of the judges most interested in the equal protection claims, wrote separately to highlight these issues, asserting that “the equal protection issue is serious.”
The parties siding with ICWA’s constitutionality argued to the Court that the Mancari case is a guide, whereas the opponents to ICWA’s constitutionality wanted to Court to ignore the case altogether. This Essay is a full-throated defense of the Mancari as a method of constitutional interpretation. Not only is the Mancari method correct, it is also the only justifiable method. This Essay proceeds with a short background on federal Indian law and its default interpretative rules. Next, the Essay surveys the application of and challenges to the Mancari method. Finally, the Essay concludes with a comparison of the methods proposed to replace or displace the Mancari method.
This Essay was prepared for the 31st Annual Rothgerber Symposium at Colorado Law School.
Here.
Here.
Here is “A Win for Tribal Sovereignty.”
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.