Wisconsin

Wisconsin Speakers Taskforce on Adoption Looking at Speeding up Adoptions

Kate Fort

Press releases: Speakers Taskforce on Adoption Membership 052919
Speakers Taskforce on Adoption 051419

Any tribal member and/or tribe can give testimony on this issue here:

Thursday, July 25, 2019
Unity School District Performing Arts Center
1908 150th St.
Balsam Lake, WI 54810
Start time: 12:00 noon
Please feel free to attend either session. If you would like time to speak please contact: Meagan Matthews at: 608-266-8551 or Meagan.Matthews@legis.wisconsin.gov

We would note that one outcome of the opioid epidemic is that some groups are pushing to terminate parental rights faster, particularly for children under the age of 3. A recent law passed in Arizona attempts to do just that, and was pushed by Generation Justice, a group founded by the recent past CEO of the Goldwater Institute.

ICWA Pro Hac Vice Rule Proposal in Wisconsin

Kate Fort

Here:

Our Pro Hac Vice page is here.

Wisconsin Proposed Pro Hac Vice Waiver for Tribal ICWA Attorneys

In the Matter of the Petition to Amend Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 10.03(4), Regarding Pro Hac Vice Admission for Nonresident Counsel Appearing in Matters Involving the Indian Child Welfare Act, Petition 18-04

Proposal to Amend WI SCR 10.03(4) to add the following:

(g) Nonresident counsel is not required to associate with an active member of the State Bar of Wisconsin and is not subject to any application or fees for pro hac vice admission if they establish to the satisfaction of the Court that:

  1. The nonresident counsel seeks to appear in a Wisconsin court for the limited purpose of participating in an “Indian child custody proceeding” as defined by s. 48.028(2)(d), or an “Indian juvenile custody proceeding” as defined by s. 938.028(2)(b), pursuant to the Wisconsin Indian Child Welfare Act (WICWA) s. 48.028, or a “child custody proceeding” as defined by 25 U.S.C. § 1903, pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; and
  2. The nonresident counsel represents an Indian Tribe pursuant to 25 USC § 1911(c), s. 48.028(3)(e), or s. 938.028(3)(e); and
  3. The Tribe has affirmed the child is an Indian child defined by 25 USC § 1903(4) and s. 48.02(8g) or an Indian Juvenile as defined by s. 938.02(8g).

As background: WA, MN, OR, MI, & NE all have rules/laws making pro hac vice easier for tribal attorneys in ICWA cases. AZ and CA have pending rules.

To submit a comment:

  1. Submitting a comment to a rules petition
    A comment to a pending rule petition shall be submitted in hard copy (include one original and nine copies). The paper copies shall be mailed to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 53701.

A person submitting a comment shall e-mail an electronic copy of the comment in MS Word format MS Word to the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court at clerk@wicourts.gov and carrie.janto@wicourts.gov.

  1. Contents of comment
    The comment shall identify the rule petition to which it relates.

III. Service of comment on petitioner
A copy of the comment shall be forwarded to the petitioner in a timely manner. See the rule petition for the name and contact information of petitioner.

https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/1804.htm

 

Fifth Annual Indian Law CLE (Wisconsin) This Friday

Kate Fort

Registration and information here.

Whether you are a practitioner currently working in Indian Country, or looking to learn more about the exciting and broad field of Indian Law, do not miss the Fifth Annual Indian Law CLE. Please join the Indian Law Section at the Ho-Chunk Convention Center in Baraboo, WI as we discuss current topics in Indian Law. This program will be submitted to the Wisconsin Board of Bar Examiners for up to 8.0 CLE credits.  We will also be submitting this program for ethics and professional responsibility (EPR) credits.

Federal Agents Raid Menominee Tribe

Sarah M Donnelly3 Comments

U.S. News report here.

Search warrant and affidavits (PDF) here.

The Tribe is being accused of growing hemp plants with too much THC in them, but the Tribe says they were upfront to the Feds about seedlings they received for industrial hemp research:

Former U.S. Attorney for North Dakota Tim Purdon is working with the Menominee tribe and blasted the raid as a “waste of resources” that “is exacerbated by the fact that the Tribe had agreed to act itself to destroy individual strains of the hemp crop that the Tribe and the U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed were problematic.”

“This misallocation of federal resources is exactly what the [2013] Cole and [2014] Wilkinson Memos were designed to prevent,” he said, referring to the Justice Department memos allowing states and tribes, respectively, to regulate marijuana.

The Menominee Tribe legalized marijuana back in August, but the government has not yet enacted regulations concerning its sale and production.

Federal Court Allows Tribal Night Deer Hunting in Wisconsin

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. State of Wisconsin (W.D. Wis.):

404 Tribal Brief

406 Opposition

409 Reply

410 DCT Order

This case is on remand from the CA7, materials here.

News coverage here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Wisconsin v. LCO Night Deer Hunting Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

The petition is here.

Wisconsin Files Cert Petition in Night Deer Hunting Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the petition in Wisconsin v. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians:

Wisconsin Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Question presented:

A moving party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) must show a significant change in factual  conditions or law that renders continued enforcement of a judgment detrimental to the public interest. The proceeding is not a relitigation of the underlying judgment. Here, the Seventh Circuit shifted the burden to the non-moving party (Wisconsin) to justify an underlying judgment that night hunting of deer was fundamentally unsafe. Does Rule 60(b)(5) permit shifting the burden to the non-moving party to justify the original judgment?

LCO Cert Opp

Seventh Circuit materials here.