Here is the opinion in Citizenship Board of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Grayson and Kennedy:
Briefs here (MCN website) and here.

Here is the opinion in McRorie v. Election Committee (Sault Tribe of Chippewa App. Ct.):

Here is the order in Grayson v. Citizenship Board (MCN Dist. Ct.):

Gabriel Galanda has posted “In the Spirit of Vine Deloria, Jr.: Indigenous Kinship Renewal and Relational Sovereignty” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This essay heeds Vine Deloria, Jr.’s inspiring call for the renewal of Indigenous kinship tradition and counsels for the development of relational sovereignty. The first part deconstructs the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 landmark decision in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez to expose its distinctly economic underpinnings. That case exemplifies a steady erosion of Indigenous reciprocity, and concurrent rise of tribal per-capitalism and neocolonialism. The second part suggests five actions that Native nations could take to restore inclusionary, duty-based kinship systems and rules. First, Native nations should replace blood quantum with alternative citizenship criteria rooted in traditional kinship principles. Second, Native nations should renew kinship terminology to eliminate neocolonial identifiers. Third, Native nations should outlaw disenrollment and bring their relatives home. Fourth, Native nations should lift enrollment moratoria and welcome their lost generations. Lastly, Native nations should—after pausing to understand the colonial legacy of federally sanctioned monetary distributions to tribal individuals—cease per capita payments and reinvest in community revitalization. By drawing on Indigenous traditions of reciprocity and shared destiny, Native nations should reconcile their peoples’ modern individual rights with their customary obligations and duties to one another. Through these strategies, Native nations can engage in a new paradigm of relational sovereignty, whereby Indigenous human existence is exalted and protected over individual power and profit.

Here are the materials in Alegre v. United States (S.D. Cal.):
193 Interior Reply in Support of 183
212 DCT Order Granting Interior’s Motion
Prior post here.
NYTs: “Tribes to Confront Bias Against Descendants of Enslaved People.”
Underscore: “Race and Tribal Sovereignty Clash in Congressional Dispute Over Enrollment.”
AP: “Black Freedmen struggle for recognition as tribal citizens.”
Choctaw Nation: “An Open Letter From Chief Gary Batton.“
NPR: “Choctaw Nation Taking First Steps To Grant Citizenship To Freedmen.”
Additional materials on the Greenwood massacre.
AP: “‘The foundation of the wealth:’ Why Black Wall Street boomed.“
I get this question a lot and have had many discussions about it recently, so I know there are some specific attorneys out there who will be interested in this case:
“As a matter of first impression in Colorado, a division of the court of appeals holds that a child’s membership in a tribe, even absent eligibility for enrollment, is sufficient for a child to be an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act.”
Here are the materials in Hall v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich.):
13 Sault Tribe Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Graham v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Citizenship Committee (also here):
Doc.-4-Appellants-Brief-02242020
Doc.-14-Appellees-Response-Brief-06122020
You must be logged in to post a comment.