Federal Court Allows KBIC Member’s Treaty Rights Case re: Pig Farming to Proceed

Here is the order denying Michigan’s motion to dismiss in Turunen v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):

DCT Order

Briefs here.

Prior posts here and here.

Colette Routel on Bounties on Dakota Men During the US-Dakota War

Highly recommended paper.

Colette Routel has posted “Minnesota Bounties on Dakota Men During the US-Dakota War” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The U.S.-Dakota War was one of the formative events in Minnesota history, and despite the passage of time, it still stirs up powerful emotions among descendants of the Dakota and white settlers who experienced this tragedy. Hundreds of people lost their lives in just over a month of fighting in 1862. By the time the year was over, thirty-eight Dakota men had been hanged in the largest mass execution in United States history. Not long afterwards, the United States abrogated its treaties with the Dakota, confiscated their reservations along the Minnesota River, and forced most of the Dakota to remove westward.

While dozens of books and articles have been written about these events, scholars have largely ignored an important legal development that occurred in Minnesota during the following summer. The Minnesota Adjutant General, at the direction of Minnesota Governors Alexander Ramsey and Henry Swift, issued a series of orders offering rewards for the killing of Dakota men found within the State. The first order authorized the creation of a corps of volunteer scouts that would scour the “Big Woods” in search of Dakota men. They were to be paid not only a daily wage, but an additional $25 for each scalp they were able to provide the Adjutant General’s Office. Subsequent orders permitted individual citizens who were not part of the volunteer corps to claim up to $200 for proof that they had killed a Dakota. These bounty orders remained in effect until at least 1868, when their constitutionality was finally questioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Gut.

Minnesota was not the only state that placed a bounty on their Indian inhabitants. Around the same time, a bounty system was enacted by the Territory of Arizona, and one was also implemented by private citizens and local governments within the State of California. Like the bounty system in Minnesota, these programs were creatures of state and territorial law, but they were implicitly and explicitly approved by the federal government. In fact, they could be viewed as part of a much broader extermination program that was at the heart of federal Indian policy during this time period.

This article uses primary historical sources to describe the events leading up to the enactment of a bounty system in Minnesota, its creation, and subsequent on-the-ground implementation. In an attempt to avoid the pitfalls of “presentism,” the legality of this bounty system is analyzed according to the laws in effect in 1863, when it was created. This article concludes that the Minnesota bounty system was illegal from its inception, as it was contrary not only the international law of war, but also the Lieber Code, which was issued by the U.S. Secretary of War in April 1863, and used to govern the conduct of Union soldiers during the ongoing Civil War.

Swinomish Prevails in Washington COA Challenge to State Dept. of Ecology in Matter Affecting Treaty Rights

Here is the opinion in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Washington Dept. of Ecology (PDF).

An excerpt:

This case involves the validity of an amended rule from the Department of Ecology (Ecology) that reserves water from the Skagit River system for future year-round out-of-stream uses, despite the fact that in times of low stream flows these uses will impair established minimum instream flows necessary for fish, wildlife, recreation, navigation, scenic and aesthetic values. Ecology relies on RCW 90.54.020(3)(a) for authority to make the reservations of water despite the existing minimum flows. This statutory provision allows impairment of stream base flows when overriding considerations of public interest are served. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (Tribe) petitioned for review in superior court, challenging the validity of Ecology’s amended rule reserving the water.

Available briefs here:

NYTs Coverage of Nez Perce Fight against MegaLoads and Climate Change

Here.

20130926-083837.jpg

News Coverage of Yakama-DOJ-FBI Agreement

Here.

Yakama Nation Reaches Settlement with DOJ/FBI re: 2011 Reservation Raid

YAKAMA NATION STRIKES HISTORIC AGREEMENT WITH DOJ, FBI TO SETTLE LITIGATION OVER 2011 RESERVATION RAID (FBI RECITALS AGREEMENT PRESS RELEASE PDF)

FBI AGREES TO COMMUNICATE WITH YAKAMA POLICE BEFORE ENTERING YAKAMA INDIAN COUNTRY

Toppenish, WA– The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation have reached an unprecedented, out-of-court settlement with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), principally the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 

The settlement fully and finally resolves Yakama’s lawsuit against the FBI and several of its sister law enforcement agencies, as well as various county and municipal police agencies from Washington State, Mississippi and Virginia.  That suit arose from a federal task force raid of Yakama Reservation trust lands that commenced at dawn on February 16, 2011.  Upon reported word of the settlement on August 15, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Rosanna Peterson closed the case.

“Today is historic.  The United States has agreed to honor the law enforcement protocols set forth in the Yakama Treaty of 1855.  That is unprecedented.” said Yakama Nation Tribal Council Chairman and former police chief Harry Smiskin.  “From today forward the FBI will communicate with Tribal Police before they enter Yakama Indian Country.  I am confident that the resulting cooperation between federal and tribal cops will greatly improve public safety throughout our territories.”

Through Article II of the Yakama Treaty of 1855, the Yakama Reservation was set apart for the exclusive use and benefit of the Yakama Nation.  To that end, the Yakama Treaty makes clear that no “white man” shall be permitted to reside upon Yakama Indian Country without permission from the Yakama Nation.  Federal Treaty negotiators explained to the Yakama that Article II meant that no one – not even United States agents, with the lone exception of today’s Bureau of Indian Affairs agents – would be permitted to step onto Yakama Reservation lands without the Yakamas’ consent.   

Also, in Article VIII of the Yakama Treaty, the United States and Yakama Nation set forth a process for delivering Yakama criminals or suspects who are in Yakama Indian Country to federal authorities.  Federal Treaty negotiators also explained to the Yakama that Article VIII meant there would be a consultation process between the Head Chief or all of the Yakama Chiefs, and the United States, relative to any Yakama alleged to have committed a wrong, before they might be delivered up to federal authorities. 

The settlement agreement between Yakama and DOJ is called, “Recitals of Joint Law Enforcement Goals.”  It recites that:

  Continue reading

Briefs in Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Member’s Treaty Rights Claim

Here are the briefs in Turunen v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):

Turunen Opposition to MTD

Michigan Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

Turunen Opposition

Michigan Reply

Amended complaint here.

Disturbing Events at Lac Courte Oreilles Treaty Rights Camp — Mining Co. Hires Paramilitary Security Firm to Push Off Anishinaabeg

News coverage from the Progressive and Wisconsin Public Radio.

From the Prog:

On Tuesday morning the Iron County Forest Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Iron County Board pursue criminal and civil charges against the Lac Courte Oreilles Treaty Harvest and Education camp for violating county ordinances and provisions of state County Forest Law. The vote took place with no discussion after the committee emerged from closed session with their corporate counsel.

The decision comes two months after the same committee voted unanimously to approve a request by the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa for a waiver to the county’s 14-day camping ordinance to allow the camp to remain established on Moore Park Road for one year.

From WPR:

MainGun
Credit Rob Ganson

An attorney who has been critical of mining company GTAC says the company might have committed a felony when it hired an unlicensed security firm to guard its test drills.

Hurley lawyer Anthony Stella had already asked the Iron County district attorney and state regulators to deny a license to Arizona-based Bulletproof Securities because the company’s paramilitary-style guards operated here without a license. In a new letter sent to the DA and the state, Stella cites another law that says anyone who employs armed people for the protection of persons or property, not being authorized by the laws of the state, is guilty of a felony.

National Labor Relations Board Asserts Jurisdiction over Chickasaw Nation Casino

Here is the decision:

Chickasaw July 12 2013 Board Decision

Judge Martinez Grants Makah Motion for Summary Judgment in U&A Dispute with Quinault and Quileute

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 09-1 (W.D. Wash.):

DCT Order

Makah Motion for Partial Summary J

Quileute Response

Quinault Response

Makah Reply