United States v. Michigan

Briefs in People v. Jensen — Motion to Dismiss State Prosecution of Treaty Fishers for Tribal Fishing Regulation Violations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials:

Jensen Motion to Dismiss

Jensen Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Jensen Motion for Leave to File Supp. Brief

Jensen Supp. Brief in Support of Motion

Jensen Motion to Take Judicial Notice of US v Mich Proceeding

Update in People of Mich. v. Jensen — 2007 Consent Decree Motions re Exclusive Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the State’s response to the Sault Tribe’s motion to enjoin the state prosecution of its members for treaty fishing violations:

State’s Response 4-25-2011

And an amicus brief supporting the state prosecution:

Bay de Noc Sports Fishermen Amicus Brief

Federal Court Filings to Stop State Prosecution of Sault Tribe Members for Treaty Fishing Violations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

As usual, Friday is the most exciting time of the week for Indian law events.

Here are the materials in the most recent proceedings in United States v. Michigan, an effort to enjoin State v. Jensen in Delta County court (John Petoskey doing the heavy lifting in state court for Jensen and Bruce Greene in federal court for the Sault Tribe):

Doc. No. 1819 (Motion for Relief)

Doc. No. 1820 Memo in Support of Motion for Relief

Doc. No. 1820-1 (Exh A-E)

Doc. No. 1820-2 (Exh F-H)

Doc. No. 1820-3 (Certif of Compliance with 2000 Consent Decree

Doc. No. 1821 (Motion to Expedite)

Anishinaabemowin and the Interpretation of Michigan Indian Treaties

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

I just posted a draft of my paper, “‘Occupancy’ and ‘Settlement’: Anishinaabemowin and the Interpretation of Michigan Indian Treaties” on SSRN. Any constructive feedback would be helpful.

Here is the abstract:

The 2007 Consent Decree in United States v. Michigan, a major victory for the tribal interests, recognized that the lands in ownership by the state, federal, and tribal governments – vast swaths of Michigan – would stand in for the lands not yet “required for settlement.” The Michigan Indians’ “privilege” to continued “occupancy” acquired legal determinacy. This short essay examines how Michigan Indian treaty negotiators would have understood the meaning of the words “settlement” and “occupancy,” and how that understanding strongly influenced the land base in which Michigan Indians can continue to exercise their inland treaty rights in accordance with the 1836 Treaty.