Here is the complaint in AT&T v. Oglala Sioux Tribe Utility Commission (D. S.D.):
INDIAN LAW STAFF ATTORNEY
DESCRIPTION – Wisconsin Judicare’s Indian Law Office has an opening in Wausau beginning in mid-January for an additional attorney to represent Native American individuals and groups on a variety of issues including criminal defense representation in tribal courts and Indian law litigation in tribal and state courts. Wisconsin Judicare is a non-profit legal services law firm serving northern Wisconsin where there are 11 Indian reservations.
DUTIES – (1) Maintain caseload on behalf of Indian individuals and groups; (2) Participate in tribal court development and community education projects; and (3) Carry out training and back-up assistance to private attorneys.
QUALIFICATIONS – (1) Admission to practice law in Wisconsin; (2) Good communications skills; and (3) Knowledge of Native American issues preferred.
SALARY – DOE. There are excellent fringe benefits.
APPLICATION PROCEDURE – Please submit resume, writing sample and 3 references to David Armstrong, Director, Indian Law Office, Wisconsin Judicare, P.O. Box 6100, Wausau, WI 54402 or at firstname.lastname@example.org. For inquiries call David at 1-800-472-1638 ext. 309.
NATIVE AMERICANS, MINORITIES, WOMEN, OLDER PERSONS AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPLY.
As some of you may know, Michigan State’s Indigenous Law and Policy Center now hosts the SSRN Indigenous Nations & Peoples Law eJournal, which posts scholarly articles on Indian law and policy as well as scholarly papers on Indigenous peoples’ law and policy worldwide. Check it out.
We couldn’t do this without the resources donated by the Kanji & Katzen firm. Chi-miigwetch!
Chi-miigwetch also to Carrie Garrow at Syracuse law school (the previous host) for helping us with this transition.
Here are the materials in State of New Mexico v. Dept. of Interior (D. N.M.):
Plaintiff State of New Mexico challenges the Department of the Interior and the Secretary of the Interior’s legal authority to implement regulations found in 25 C.F.R. § 291 (“Secretarial Procedures” or “Part 291 regulations”). The Secretarial Procedures, if adopted, would allow the Pueblo of Pojoaque to conduct Class III gaming on its reservation. New Mexico asks this Court to declare the Secretarial Procedures invalid because they conflict with the unambiguous terms of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. and violate New Mexico’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
Welcome From the Chair of the Indian Law Section
Helaman “Helo” Hancock
Why Applying the Indian Child Welfare Act is Worth the Hassle
Julie Sobotta Kane
It’s Worth the Hassle Part II: How Does the Baby Veronica Case Impact Cases Involving Indian Children?
Prof. Elizabeth Barker Brandt
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Tribal Sovereign Immunity, Again
Guilty Again? The Use of Tribal Court Guilty Pleas in Federal Court
Idaho Tribal State Court Forum Finds Common Ground Among State and Tribal Courts
Hon. Gaylen L. Box
The Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Claims in the Coeur d’Alene-Spokane River Basin Adjudication
Dylan R. Hedden-Nicely
The Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Enduring Relation to Water — A Legal History
Dylan R. Hedden-Nicely
A Tradition of Excellence in Native American Law at the University of Idaho College of Law
Prof. Angelique EagleWoman
Here is the complaint in Glacier Electric Coop. Inc. v. Gervais (D. Mont.):
From the complaint:
The Tribal Court plainly lacks jurisdiction over the Lawsuit because the Tribal Court, and Blackfeet Tribe, lack subject matter and personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs.
From the tribal court complaint:
A public utility may not use its privileged position, in conjunction with the demand, which it has created, as a weapon to control rates by threatening to discontinue that part of its service, if it does not receive the rate demanded.
Here are the materials in Estate of Redd v. Love (D. Utah):
This case arises following the tragic suicide of Dr. James D. Redd after his arrest for trafficking in stolen Native American artifacts, theft of government property, and theft of tribal property. The Estate of Dr. Redd brings this Bivens action against Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Agents Daniel Love and Dan Barnes. The Estate of Dr. Redd asserts that Agent Love and Agent Barnes violated Dr. Redd’s constitutional rights  by: (1) providing false information to obtain a warrant for Dr. Redd’s arrest and authorizing a search of his home; (2) using the illegally obtained search warrant to search Dr. Redd’s home; (3) using excessive force against Dr. Redd primarily by sending approximately 140 agents, many of whom were heavily armed and clothed in flak jackets, to raid and search Dr. Redd’s home; (4) violating Dr. Redd’s equal protection rights; and (5) violating Dr. Redd’s right to due process.
Defendants move to dismiss, arguing qualified immunity shields them from Dr. Redd’s claims. After careful consideration and for the reasons stated below, the court finds that Agent Love and Agent Barnes are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action because Dr. Redd has failed to allege enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. But, the court finds that Dr. Redd has pleaded facts that, if true, are sufficient to show that officials violated Dr. Redd’s clearly established constitutional right of protection against excessive force when Defendants employed between about 80 to 140 agents to raid and search Dr. Redd’s home.
In January 1996, the Redds visited and collected Native American artifacts from an area they believed to be privately owned. Unbeknownst to the Redds, the BLM map they relied on was inaccurately drawn. The Redds were, in fact, collecting Native American artifacts from Cottonwood Wash, a Hopi ancestral burial ground. The Redds were arrested and charged with desecration of a human body. The arrest ultimately resulted in Mrs. Redd entering an Alford Plea in which she admitted no criminal conduct, and agreed to pay $10,000 to settle a civil suit related to the act. The state dropped all charges against Dr. Redd.
Here is the opinion in Lyman v. MacArthur:
And the brief:
The law was drafted by a group that includes the country’s 36 indigenous peoples. It is expected to pass and become law. More here.