Here is the order:
Complaint and motion are here.
tribal membership
Chukchansi Leadership Dispute Now a “Civil War”
Here.
The February 11 from the BIA is here.
Pleadings in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Tan (E.D. Cal.):
2014 02 19 Aff of R. Lewis – ENDORSED
2014 02 19 Aff of R. Rosette – ENDORSED
2014 02 19 Complaint – ENDORSED
2014 02 19 Ex Parte App – ENDORSED
WaPo Article on Interior and the Cherokee Freedmen
Here.
Additional Materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Jewell
Sherry Treppa Op/Ed on the BIA and Tribal Membership Decisions
Here.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Injunction against BIA in San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Membership Dispute
Here are the materials in Alto v. Black:
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Brief
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Reply Brief
An excerpt:
In an appeal from the district court’s orders denying a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction and denying motions to dismiss in an action concerning a dispute over membership in an Indian tribe, the panel affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded. The San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians’ governing documents vested the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, with ultimate authority over membership. The panel held that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin preliminarily the enforcement of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ order upholding the Band’s decision to disenroll descendants of Marcus Alto, Sr. from the Band, and that the Band was not a required party, because the claims underlying the preliminary injunction concern solely the propriety of final agency action. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the Band’s motion to dismiss the claims on which the injunction rests and the district court’s consequent refusal to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The panel remanded to allow the district court to clarify its order. Finally, the panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review on interlocutory appeal the Band’s motion to dismiss the Altos’ other claims, on which the district court expressly deferred ruling.
Federal Court Remands Cal. Valley Miwok Membership Issues to BIA
Here are the materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Jewell (D. D.C.):
56 Federal Motion for Summary J
83 Intervenor CVMT Response to US Motion
87 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
88 DCT Order on Cross-Motions for Summary J
An excerpt:
For the reasons discussed below, this Court concludes that the Assistant Secretary erred when he assumed that the Tribe’s membership is limited to five individuals and further assumed that the Tribe is governed by a duly constituted tribal council, thereby ignoring multiple administrative and court decisions that express concern about the nature of the Tribe’s governance. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in so far as it seeks remand of the August 2011 Decision and deny the Federal Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment.
New Scholarship on Tribal Membership and UNDRIP
Shin Amai and Kate Buttery have posted “Indigenous Belonging: A Commentary on Membership and Identity in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People,” forthcoming in Oxford Commentaries on International Law: A Commentary on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
The recognition of indigenous peoples’ right to determine their own membership is crucial to the survival of indigenous groups and for their ability to meaningfully exercise their right to self-determination. This chapter will begin with a discussion of who indigenous peoples are, and will then proceed to review the specific provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration) as they pertain to indigenous-determined group membership and duties: Articles 9 (right to belong); 33 (right to determine membership); 35 (right to determine responsibilities of members); and 36 (right to maintain relations across borders). Together, these provisions reinforce the right of indigenous peoples to define themselves, both in terms of membership and geographic scope. These rights are not absolute, however, and are constrained by Articles 44 (gender equality) and Article 46 (compliance with international human rights standards).
Star-Tribune Coverage of White Earth Constitutional Referendum
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.