Christina Marie Dewey, Emily Proctor, Estrella Torrez, and Jennifer Rosa
Tiffani Darden, Eric Hemenway, and Treena Metallic
Dr. Nicole Blalack, Melody McCoy, April Day, and Kristi Bowman
Respondent-father appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) (other conditions exist that cause thechild to come within the court’s jurisdiction), (3)(g) (failure to provideproper care or custody), and (3)(j) (reasonable likelihood of harm). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm in part but remand this matter to the trial court to consider whether to conduct a Ginther hearing or to resolve the issues set forth herein by making a determination as to whether trial counsel was ineffective such that there exists a reasonableprobability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would have been different.
Friends of Amador County v. Jewell
Issue: Whether, in an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., a putative Indian tribe may invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary’s decision to recognize it as a tribe.
We posted on this matter here.
Also, the petition was yesterday’s petition of the day.
Keynote speaker Kevin Washburn
Dean Howarth and Assistant Secretary Washburn
Tribal In House Counsel Reps — Doreen and Liz
Here. The amendment appears minor:
At Slip Op. 22, 768 F.3d at 974, the sentence beginning with <The Indian preference exemption> and ending with <does not extend to Indians.> is deleted and replaced with:
The Indian preference exemption contained in Section 703(i) is therefore necessary to clarify that Title VII’s prohibition against racial or national origin discrimination does not extend to preferential hiring of Indians living on or near reservations.
Panel materials here.
Here is “The Shrinking Sovereign: Tribal Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers in Civil Cases,” (PDF) published in the Columbia Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
Tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers is limited to two narrow areas: consensual economic relationships between tribes and nonmembers, and nonmember activity that threatens tribal integrity. Even within these two narrow fields, the Supreme Court has stated that tribal adjudicatory power over nonmembers—the authority to decide legal rights of individuals, usually in a trial-like setting—cannot exceed the tribe’s legislative power over nonmembers—the power to regulate nonmember activity through the enactment of legislation and regulation. This raises a question that the Court has acknowledged but never answered: whether a tribe may exercise adjudicatory authority over nonmembers as a result of its legislative power. More simply put, is a tribe’s adjudicatory jurisdiction over nonmembers less than, or equal to, its legislative power?
This Note argues that tribes should have concurrent regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over nonmembers in disputes based on consensual economic relationships, but tribal regulation concerning tribal integrity should be subject to greater federal court oversight. Tribal courts should have presumptive jurisdiction to enforce tribalintegrity regulations; however, proof that the tribal court is unfair or inaccessible to nonmembers should permit federal courts to intervene. By drawing on analogous principles in administrative law, civil procedure, and the law of federal courts, this Note provides a workable solution that is consistent with existing Supreme Court tribal law jurisprudence, that conforms with the normative values shaping jurisdiction in other contexts, and that also respects tribal sovereignty.