Monte Mills on Indian Treaties and the Washington Supreme Court

Monte Mills has published “From Winans to Wallahee: Treaties, the Washington State Supreme Court, and the Pursuit of a More Just Rule of Law” in the Washington Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

The relationship between the United States federal government, the states, and Native Nations has long been at the core of federal Indian law. From the earliest decades of its jurisprudence, for example, the United States Supreme Court struggled in its efforts to analyze and define the rights, authorities, and interactions of Native Nations within and in relation to the evolving structure of constitutional federalism. Treaties between the United States and Native Nations were central to those decisions and provided a necessary, constitutional check against state interests intent on eliminating sovereign Native Nations. Those constitutional and structural implications thus go well beyond federal Indian law and provide important—but often overlooked—insight into the health and stability of fundamental aspects of our legal system as a whole and, therefore, the rule of law itself. Here in Washington, the Washington State Supreme Court developed its own approach to analyzing and interpreting treaty rights, which, for much of the first half of the twentieth century, largely ignored or dismissed treaties and rights reserved thereunder in favor of state interests. More recently, however, the state’s highest court has embarked on an effort to reassess and reckon with its role in perpetrating and perpetuating historical injustices. That effort has resulted in a series of decisions reconsidering the Court’s own treaty-related jurisprudence and, therefore, offers a timely and critically important opportunity to consider the potential and promise of this work. In the spirit of the 125th anniversary of the founding of the University of Washington School of Law and the centennial volume of Washington Law Review, this Article considers the fundamental issues posed by treaty-related questions and aims to draw lessons from the Washington State Supreme Court’s recent efforts to address historical injustices that might inform other, similar efforts across the country. Situating that assessment within the context of treaty rights and the sovereignty of Native Nations illustrates the power of this work to catalyze a deeper and broader reckoning with crucial questions of justice and the rule of law.

Washington SCT Rejects Immovable Property Exception to Sovereign Immunity

Here is the opinion in Flying T Ranch Inc. v. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians:

Briefs here.

Washington SCT Holds State ICWA’s Active Efforts Requirement Attaches Prior to Dependency Hearing

Here is the opinion in In re Dependency of C.J.J.I.:

Briefs (links to state court website):

Washington State Supreme Court / Minority and Justice Symposium: “TÁĆELŚW̱ SIÁM: A Call to Justice for Indigenous Peoples”

Here:

Washington SCT Oral Argument in Immovable Property Case

Here is the oral argument video in Flying T Ranch v. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians.

Briefs here.

S’posed to be immovable property.

Washington SCT Briefs in Immovable Property Immunity “Exception” Appeal

Here are the briefs in Flying T Ranch v. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians:

Washington COA materials here.

Suquamish and Squaxin Island Amicus Brief in State Environmental Regulation Matter

Here is the brief in City of Tacoma v. State of Washington Department of Ecology:

Washington Supreme Court Opinion on Active Efforts

Catching up on posting the summer’s reported ICWA cases, so I’m starting with this Washington Supreme Court opinion on active efforts for the initial or shelter care hear.

JMWOpinion 

We took discretionary interlocutory review of this case primarily to decide whether WICWA required the State to take active efforts to prevent the breakup of J.M.W.’s family before taking him into emergency foster care. Consistent with the plain text and purpose of WICWA, we conclude that it did. We also conclude that the trial court was required to make a finding on the record at the interim shelter care hearing that J.M.W.’s out of home placement was necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm. We remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This opinion is trying to find some clarity in what ICWA standards apply when. Here are the two questions the Court sought to answer:

First, whether the department is required to make active efforts to keep an Indian child with their family under such circumstances as presented here. Second, whether the trial court was required to make a formal finding at the interim shelter care hearing that continued placement out of the home was necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child.

The section question is essentially asking if the emergency standard of 1922 should apply whenever a child is placed out of the home and there is no 1912 (active efforts, QEW) findings. Interim shelter care hearings often happen before a jurisdictional/adjudication hearing, and can sometimes (often) extend the time before  adjudication hearing happens. In many states the 1912 findings happen either at adjudication or even after that, at the disposition hearing.

Washington SCT Commissioner Grants Review of Nooksack Disenrollee Evictions

Here is the opinion and order in Oshiro v. Washington State Housing Finance Commission:

Prior post here.

Washington SCT Intervenes in Nooksack Disenrollees’ Housing Suit

Here are the materials in Oshiro v. Washington State Housing Finance Commission: