Supreme Court Denies Cert in Daugaard/Hein/South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux and Miccosukee v. Kraus-Anderson

Here is the order list.

Here are the cert stage briefs in both cases.

HuffPo Article on Catholic Church Sex Abuse on South Dakota Reservations

Here is the article.

Excerpts:

The letters are casual, even chatty, from officials of St. Francis Mission, on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation, in South Dakota, to Catholic Church superiors. The mission ran one of many boarding schools to which Native American parents were required to send their children from the late 1800s until the 1970s, when most of the institutions were closed down or transferred to tribal control.

“All goes along quietly out here,” one priest wrote in 1968, with “good religious and lay faculty” at the mission. There are troublesome staffers, though, including “Chappy,” who is “fooling around with little girls — he had them down the basement of our building in the dark, where we found a pair of panties torn.” Later that year, Brother Francis Chapman was still abusing children, though by 1970, he was “a new man,” the reports say. In 1973, Chappy again “has difficulty with little girls.”

Some documents are more discreet than explicit. In 1967, two nuns at St. Paul’s Indian Mission, on the Yankton Sioux Reservation, also in South Dakota, had excessive “interest in” and “dealings with” older male students, says a report to Church higher-ups. (St. Paul’s, pictured below, was renamed Marty Indian School when the tribe took it over in 1975; 2008 graduation tipis are shown in the foreground.) Another nun has “too close a circle of friends, especially two boys.”

What ex-students describe as rampant sexual abuse in South Dakota’s half-dozen boarding schools occurred against a backdrop of extreme violence. “I’ll never forget my sister’s screams as the nuns beat her with a shovel after a pair of scissors went missing,” said Mary Jane Wanna Drum, 64, who attended a Catholic institution in Sisseton, South Dakota, for the children of her tribe, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate.

Izzy Zephier, 62, a Yankton Sioux tribal member, recalled a Sunday-evening ritual at St. Paul’s Indian Mission. “Those who’d tried to run away were stripped, lined up, and given 40 lashes each with a thick rubber strap,” he said.

Federal Court Affirms Interior Decision to Take Yankton Travel Plaza Parcel into Trust

Here is the order in County of Charles Mix v. DOI (D. S.D.):

DCT Order Denying Granting Summary J against Charles Mix County

Here are the briefs.

Federal Court Remands Yankton Sioux Trust Acquisition to DOI to Allow Review of 23 Documents

Here are the materials in South Dakota v. DOI (D. S.D.):

DCT Order Remanding to Interior

Interior Motion to Dismiss

South Dakota Motion for Summary J

It should be noted that in this case South Dakota is challenging a trust acquisition called the Wagner Heights Addition. The land is to be used for tribal housing, and in fact the tribal housing is already there.

Interior Motion to Dismiss Yet Another Challenge to the Constitutionality to IRA Section 5

Here is the motion in the case captioned County of Charles Mix v. DOI (D. S.D.): Interior Motion to Dismiss Charles Mix County Complaint

And here is the response: Charles Mix County Opposition Brief

Here is the complaint, a challenge to the government’s trust acquisition of land for the Yankton Sioux Tribe on which a travel plaza is located.

Charles Mix County Challenge to Yankton Travel Plaza Trust Acquisition

Here is the complaint in County of Charles Mix v. U.S. Dept. of Interior (D. S.D.): Charles Mix County v. DOI Complaint

News article here, via Indianz.

Yankton Sioux Decision in Light of Podhradsky

The 8th Circuit opinion in Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is here. The opinion in Podhrasky is here.

Because this appeal was briefed and argued with the cross appeals pending in Podhradsky, the parties have understandably reiterated their core positions in that case, namely, the Tribe’s contention that the Reservation was diminished only by the sales of surplus lands ceded by the 1894 Act (as the Supreme Court held in Yankton Sioux Tribe ), and the State’s contrary contention that the Reservation was altogether disestablished by the 1894 Act. We rejected those contentions in Podhradsky. That decision is final (subject only to further review by this court or the Supreme Court) and binding on our panel. Therefore, we will discuss in this opinion only those issues raised by the Tribe that were not presented to and decided by the court in Podhradsky.

Suit Against Yankton Sioux Tribal Court Dismissed

Here are the materials in Moss v. Bossman, from the District of South Dakota.

moss-v-bossman-dct-order

yankton-motion-to-dismiss2

An excerpt:

Continue reading

What Remains of the Yankton Sioux Reservation?

After a decade of litigation, a federal court (D. S.D.) held a trial and reached a decision as to “what remains of the Yankton Sioux Reservation following the Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329, 358 (1998).” Slip op. at 2.

Here are the materials:

Continue reading

Federal Tort Claims Act & Indian Self Determination Act — Necklace v. United States

Interesting case involving the federal government’s liability for a road maintenance accident in Indian Country. Here are the materials:

District Court Order (D. S.D.)

Continue reading