Here are the materials in United States v. Shavanaux:
Government Opening Brief in Shavanaux
Government Reply Brief in Shavanaux
Lower court materials are here.
Tenth Circuit
Cert Petition in Arctic Slope v. Sebelius (II)
It will be interesting to see what the OSG does with this. The last time a circuit split developed in similar circumstances, the government brought a cert petition and essentially concurred with the tribal cert petition (Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt).
Here are the materials:
Here is the question presented:
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Tenth Circuit, that a government contractor which has fully performed its end of the bargain has no remedy when a government agency overcommits itself to other projects and, as a result, does not have enough money left in its annual appropriation to pay the contractor.
Here are the lower court materials.
And here are the materials in Ramah, the Tenth Circuit case that generates the circuit split.
Tenth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction — Domestic Violence at Zuni Pueblo
Here is the opinion in United States v. Mutte.
Tenth Circuit Affirms Injunction against Tribal Court in Crowe & Dunlevy PC v. Stidham
Here is the opinion. And the briefs.
An excerpt:
Judge Gregory R. Stidham of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court appeals the district court’s order granting preliminary injunctive relief to Crowe & Dunlevy (“Crowe”) and denying Judge Stidham’s motion to dismiss. Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1227 (N.D. Okla. 2009). Because the district court correctly denied Judge Stidham’s motion to dismiss and did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, we affirm.
Tenth Circuit Victory for Tribes in Self-Determination Act Contract Support Costs Case
Here are the materials in Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Salazar:
Tenth Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to SORNA (Underlying Major Crimes Act Conviction)
Here is today’s opinion in United States v. Yelloweagle.
An excerpt:
Alden Yelloweagle, the appellant here, was previously convicted of a federal sex offense. When he failed to register as required, he was indicted by federal authorities under the enforcement provision. Mr. Yelloweagle moved to dismiss the indictment for various reasons. Two of the reasons he offered are relevant here. First, he contended that no provision of the Constitution authorizes Congress to require all sex offenders to register. Accordingly, Mr. Yelloweagle
argued, he could not be punished for failing to comply with the requirement. Second, even if the registration requirement was valid, Mr. Yelloweagle contended that the criminal enforcement provision also lacked a jurisdictional
basis and therefore was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion to dismiss.In his opening brief on appeal, Mr. Yelloweagle makes no mention of the first argument regarding the registration requirement; he focuses only on the claim that Congress lacks the power to criminalize the failure to register under the
enforcement provision. The government argues that this tactical shift dooms Mr. Yelloweagle’s appeal, for if the registration requirement is presumed to be constitutional, then the criminal provision is valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18. We agree.
Tenth Circuit Affirms Sentencing in Major Crimes Act Case
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Commanche.
Tenth Circuit: Fed. Courts Have No Jurisdiction over Non-Indian, Victimless Crime in Indian Country
Here is the opinion in United States v. Langford.
All this despite language in the Oklahoma Constitution appearing to disclaim state jurisdiction over crimes like these:
Although the McBratney line of cases establishes that the states, not the federal government, possess exclusive jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrators of victimless crimes, the Oklahoma Constitution appears to disclaim any state jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country. Article I, Section 3 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: The people inhabiting the State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title in or to any unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian, tribe, or nation; and that until the title to any such public land shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the jurisdiction, disposal, and control of the United States. Notwithstanding the plain text, the Oklahoma courts have construed this provision “to disclaim jurisdiction over Indian lands only to the extent that the federal government claimed jurisdiction.” Goforth v. State, 644 P.2d. 114, 116 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982) (citing Currey v. Corp. Comm’n, 617 P.2d 177 (Okla. 1979)). As the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals observed in Goforth, to construe this provision otherwise would result in a jurisdictional vacuum in which neither the federal government (due to McBratney) nor Oklahoma could punish crimes committed by non-Indians against non-Indians in Indian country. Consequently, the Oklahoma courts have asserted jurisdiction over crimes by non-Indians in Indian country. See Goforth, 644 P.2d at 117.
Here are the briefs:
Laughter v. Gallup Indian Medical Center — Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Title VII Claim by American Indian
Here is the unpublished opinion.
The lower court had dismissed the claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Stacy Leeds on the Tenth Circuit’s ICWA Decision re: Cherokee Nation Citizenship Act
Here:
The Cherokee Nation has an automatic 240 day citizenship that attaches to any newborn who is a descendant of the Dawes Rolls. This was enacted to ensure that newborns are Cherokee citizens subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act’s protections and presumes that the parents will make a decision whether the enroll the child as a Cherokee citizen during their infancy. I would like to see our Nation go one step further and simply have natural born citizenship laws like other sovereigns throughout the globe, but that’s an aside. The decision from the the Tenth Circuit is here. The federal court does not like the idea of this “temporary citizenship” for inclusion in protections of a federal statute.
My question for tribal legal reform: why have people “enroll” a child as a citizen in the first place? Why not have Cherokee Nation laws that automatically extend citizenship to children who are eligible for citizenship and if someone chooses to disavow their citizenship, go thru the administrative process to renounce citizenship? When tribes requires someone to “enroll” as members/citizens of the Nation, it contributes to the idea the tribal citizenship is inferior to other citizenship. I envision this sequence: Citizenship by birth, followed by a Cherokee Nation Birth Certificate and/Cherokee Nation ID card for documentation purposes, followed by a Cherokee Nation driver’s license to operate a vehicle.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.