NYTs on Trend of International Museums to Repatriate Human Remains of Indigenous Peoples

Here.

An excerpt:

In many ways, the German association is drawing on the experiences of museums in Britain and the United States, which started facing claims for the repatriation of human remains decades ago. The Smithsonian began to repatriate American Indian bones in the late 1980s, and in 1990 the United States passed legislation to enforce the return of those remains by museums that benefit from federal funds. The Smithsonian independently returned remains to Australia in 2008 and 2010.

However, a report in 2011 from the Government Accountability Office still urged new measures to speed up the Smithsonian’s work, because by then it had returned only 5,000 remains, about one-third of its collection of such material.

The Patchak Patch

See Press Release here.

Excerpt:

Today, Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn issued for public comment a proposed rule designed to demonstrate the Administration’s commitment to restoring tribal homelands and furthering economic development on Indian reservations. The proposed rule will provide for greater notice of land-into-trust decisions and clarify the mechanisms for judicial review depending on whether the land is taken into trust by the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, or by an official of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.During the public comment window, Indian Affairs will also conduct tribal consultation.

For the Bureau of Indian Affairs trust acquisition decisions, which are generally for non-gaming purposes and constitute the vast majority of land-into-trust decisions, the proposed rule will ensure that parties have adequate notice of the action and clarifies the requirement that exhaustion of administrative remedies within the Department is necessary to seek judicial review.

“The principal purpose of this proposed rule is to provide greater certainty to tribes in their ability to develop lands acquired in trust for purposes such as housing, schools and economic development,” said Assistant Secretary Washburn. “For such acquisitions, the proposed rule will create a ‘speak now or forever hold your peace moment’ in the land-into-trust process. If parties do not appeal the decision within the administrative appeal period, tribes will have the peace of mind to begin development without fear that the decision will be later overturned.”

Pre-publication version.

Update from Interior:

Since the Obama Administration took office in January of 2009, the Department has approved more than 1175 applications for land into trust, including 12 for Indian Gaming, and the total acquisitions include more than 205,000 acres.

Colorado Order Granting Summary Judgment Against Butch Webb Reinstated

Here:

Amended Order Reinstating the Courts April 15, 2013 Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

Prior post here.

Seventh Circuit Issues Limited Remand(?) in Jackson v. Payday Financial Appeal

Here is the order, which appears to be in response to letters from counsel for both parties on this case (materials here and here):

Jackson v. Payday Finanical (7th Cir Order)

Jackson Letter Payday Financial Response

The appeal remains pending until the district court answers the questions posed by the panel. Briefs and lower court materials remain here.

Opening Brief in Lansing Casino Dispute — Michigan v. Sault Tribe

Here is the opening brief:

Sault Tribe CA6 brief

Lower court materials here.

Spring 2013 American Indian Law Journal Issue Now Available

Here:

Masthead
Fishable Waters	Catherine A. O’Neill
Evidence Issues In Indian Law Cases	Taylor S. Fielding
August 2011 – August 2012 Case Law on American Indians	Thomas P. Schlosser
Sovereignty, Safety, and Sandy: Tribal Governments Gain (Some) Equal Standing Under The Hurricane Sandy Relief Act	Heidi Adams
The Risks and Benefits of Tribal Payday Lending to Tribal Sovereign Immunity: Tribal Payday Lending Enterprises Are Immune Under A Proposed Universal Arm of The Tribe Test	Bree Black Horse
An Unreserved Attack on Reserved Water Rights: The Story of the San Carlos Apache Tribe’s Water Rights (or Lack Thereof)	Daniel Lee & Jacob Stender
Alaska Natives: Possessing Inherent Rights To Self-Governance and Self-Governing From Time Immemorial To Present Day	Kristin McCarrey

Read the entire issue here (PDF).

Barbara Creel on the the Right to Counsel in Indian Country

Barbara Creel has posted “The Right to Counsel for Indians Accused of Crime: A Tribal and Congressional Imperative,” published in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law (my law school journal!), on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Native American Indians charged in tribal court criminal proceedings are not entitled to court appointed defense counsel. Under well-settled principles of tribal sovereignty, Indian tribes are not bound by Fifth Amendment due process guarantees or Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Instead, they are bound by the procedural protections established by Congress in the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Indian defendants have the right to counsel at their own expense. This Article excavates the historical background of the lack of counsel in the tribal court arena and exposes the myriad problems that it presents for Indians and tribal sovereignty.

While an Indian has the right to defense counsel in federal criminal court proceedings, he does not in tribal court. This distinction makes a grave difference for access to justice for Americans Indians not only in tribal court, but also in state and federal courts. The Article provides in-depth analysis, background, and context necessary to understand the right to counsel under the ICRA and the U.S. Constitution. Addressing serious civil rights violations that negatively impact individual Indians and a tribe’s right to formulate due process, this Article ultimately supports an unqualified right to defense counsel in tribal courts.

Defense counsel is an indispensable element of the adversary system without which justice would not “still be done.” Tribes, however, were forced to embrace a splintered system of justice that required the adversary system but prohibited an adequate defense. The legacy of colonialism and the imposition of this fractured adversary system has had a devastating impact on the formation of tribal courts. This legacy requires tribal and congressional leaders to rethink the issue of defense counsel to ensure justice and fairness in tribal courts today. The Article concludes that tribes should endeavor to provide counsel to all indigent defendants appearing in tribal courts and calls upon Congress to fund the provision of counsel to reverse the legacy of colonialism and avoid serious human rights abuses.

Highly recommended!

Cayuga Press Release in Response to OIN/NY State Agreement

Here.

Lac Courte Oreilles Band Sues IHS for Contract Support Costs

Here is the complaint in Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. United States (D. D.C.):

Complaint

Suit against NIGC over Gaming Management Contract Decision

Here is the complaint in Bettor Racing Inc. v. NIGC (D. S.D.):

Bettor Complaint