From the Guardian, here.
Katahdin is the Penobscots’ sacred mountain. When you look north as the river splits into its east and west branches, you look directly at Katahdin.
By Sean Hecht (“Go Blue”), here.
But the idea that large monument designations are new or inappropriate is, much like other current right-wing narratives about the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies, a false story based on false history. Bears Ears contains tens of thousands of culturally and archaeologically significant sites. In this case, as in others, preserving a large area of land is warranted in order to adequately protect unique ecological and cultural resources. Beyond that, the history of the Act’s application, and the history of court decisions interpreting the Act, demonstrate that since the Act’s enactment, Presidents have lawfully designated large monuments to protect landscapes, ecosystems, and natural features as well as culturally important sites.
I haven’t done the math to fact-check the claim by Secretary Zinke that “since the 1900s, when the Act was first used, the average size of national monuments exploded from an average of 422 acres per monument.” The claim is written so ambiguously that it may mean any number of things. But any cursory look at the history of monument designations reveals that this claim, and similar claims by Sen. Hatch and others, are false or extraordinarily misleading.
In fact, the Antiquities Act has been used to protect enormous areas of land since 1908, when President Roosevelt designated the 818,000-acre Grand Canyon National Monument. He also designated the 615,000-acre Mount Olympus National Monument in 1909, and the 60,000-acre Petrified Forest National Monument in 1906, within a few months of the passage of the Act.
And from HuffPo: “Why Trump Doesn’t Have The Power To Mess With National Monuments.”
Concetta Tsosie de Haro has posted “Federal Restrictions on Tribal Customary Law: The Importance of Tribal Customary Law in Tribal Courts.” The paper was published in the Tribal Law Journal.
Here is the abstract:
This article examines the adverse effects of federal case law and legislation on tribal courts and tribal courts’ ability to incorporate tribal customary law. Tribal customary law is the law given to tribes by holy deities which governs tribal ways of life. It is important to maintain tribal customary law because it strengthens tribal communities’ identities and cultural foundations. While Supreme Court precedent has, at different times, both restricted and promoted tribes’ ability to use tribal customary law to adjudicate the cases of tribal members, federal legislation including the Major Crimes Act, the Indian Civil Rights Act, the Tribal Law and Order Act, and the Violence Against Women Act continues to restrict tribes’ ability to apply customary law in tribal courts. To illustrate one way in which current federal Indian policy limits tribes’ ability to use customary law, the author highlights the ways in which two-spirit tribal members are excluded and ignored by the protections established in the Violence against Women Act. As the use of tribal customary law is critical to the maintenance of tribal sovereignty, this article advocates for corrections to these legislative restrictions to promote tribal court’s use of tribal customary law.
Application and additional information available at: law.asu.edu/pipelinetolaw
Job vacancies are posted on Friday. Some announcements might still appear throughout the week. If you would like your Indian law job posted on Turtle Talk, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Bora Lasking Faculty of Law at Lakehead University
(2) Limited Term Faculty, Ontario, CA. Term of 10 months to three years, dependent on qualifications and experience. The appointment(s) will commence August 1, 2017 at an academic rank commensurate with the qualifications of the successful candidate. Review of the applications will begin May 24, 2017 and will continue until the position(s) are filled.
Mescalero Apache Tribe
Alternate Judge (Pro Tem)/Appellate Court Judge, Mescalero, NM. Please submit an application, cover letter, resume and 3-5 page writing sample for employment to the Human Resources Department located at the Tribal Offices. Call 575-464-9273 for more information.
Public Defender. Shall work independently on all matters relating to the defense of any individual appearing before court. The Public Defender shall be under the administrative supervision of the Chief Judge for budgetary and employee matters.
Frye Law Firm
Associate Attorney, Albuquerque, NM. The Frye Law Firm is seeking a seasoned associate attorney. We are a small firm in Albuquerque,New Mexico that focuses on Indian law. Three or more years’ experience in litigation, business development, and/or governmental law is preferred. The firm principally provides legal counsel and representation to Indian tribes, tribal business entities, and other tribal organizations, including schools and hospitals. The firm is an equal opportunity employer. A demonstrated history of providing high quality legal services and extraordinary accomplishments is required. To apply,please submit: (1) a cover letter describing your interest in and qualifications for the position, (2) a resumé, (3) three writing samples, (4) a list of three references, and (5) a law school transcript, to 10400 Academy Rd. NE, Suite 310, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111. For additional information about the firm, please visit our website at http://www.fryelaw.us.
Rosebud Sioux Tribe
Assistant Prosecutor, Rosebud, S.D. Those interested must fill out an Employment Application, a background check form entitled “Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions,” and a form called “Applicant Screening Questionnaire Indian Child Protection requirements” found at https://www.rosebudsiouxtribe-nsn.gov/employment-listings.
Michigan Indian Legal Services
Staff Attorney, Tribal offices in southwest MI. The ideal applicant will be licensed to practice law in Michigan or eligible to be admitted by waiver and have three to five years relevant experience.
From one of the authors of the original paper:
It is true that there have been a number of proclamations diminishing monuments in the past but none of these have been challenged in court so no court has ever passed on the legality of these actions. Moreover, all of these actions were pre-FLPMA, which matters significantly here because FLPMA repealed the Midwest Oil decision. A 1935 Solicitor’s Opinion relied heavily on Midwest Oil to justify proclamations that diminished monuments. Post FLPMA, that justification is gone.
Original post here.
House Resources staff response.
Here. Dissent to denial of rehearing by Judge O’Scannlain (joined by several other judges).
En banc materials here.
Panel materials here.
Here is the notice of appeal:
And the IHS letter:
Lower court materials here.