From WaPo, here, as communicated to the Centers for a Disease Control and Prevention.
Orwellian Trump Administration’s Current List of Banned Words: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
Job vacancies are posted on Friday. Some announcements might still appear throughout the week. If you would like your Indian law or leadership job posted on Turtle Talk, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Staff Attorney, Nome, A.K. Kawerak Incorporated is recruiting for a regular full time Staff Attorney. Our offices are located in Nome, AK. The Staff Attorney provides legal services to the tribal governments in the Bering Strait region. This position will work closely with and be supervised by the General Counsel. The Staff Attorney will provide advice and legal services to the region’s tribes and to Kawerak program staff regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), development and implementation of tribal justice systems, tribal laws and policies and other tribal legal matters. The Staff Attorney will also develop programs and take actions which support and expand tribal sovereignty and self-governance, and monitor and analyze legal and political developments affecting tribal government in Alaska and disseminate such information to the tribes. The Staff Attorney is expected to travel frequently to meet with Tribal Councils, and to provide training in such subject areas.
Qualifications include: Law degree from accredited law school required. Must be licensed to practice law in the State of Alaska, or able to become licensed in Alaska within six months of employment. Working knowledge of Alaska Native legal issues such as ICWA and tribal jurisdiction, preferred. Experience in cross-cultural and rural environments preferred. Two years active practice as an attorney preferred.
This position is subject to requirements regarding criminal and civil child protection history established by Kawerak as incorporated from the Alaska Barrier Crimes Act AS 47.05.310-47.05.390, 7 AAC 10,900-10. Native Preference per PL 93-638. For more information about the position please email email@example.com. To obtain a Kawerak application, please visit www.kawerak.org – employment opportunities job posts.
Family Court Judge, Green Bay, W.I. Responsible for administering the judicial authorities and responsibilities of the Oneida Nation. This position exercises the inherent power to apply and enforce Oneida law as it pertains to children and families. This position will be under an employment contract. Continuation of this position is contingent upon funding allocations. It is currently open only to enrolled members of Oneida.
Department of Justice
AUSA, Criminal Division, District of South Dakota, Pierre, N.D. Advises federal law enforcement agents on criminal investigations, present criminal cases to the grand jury, prepare and argue a broad range of motions, and try criminal cases before the United States District Court. Candidates should be capable of handling a variety of significant and complex criminal prosecutions, including Major Crimes Act violations involving murder, child sex abuse, rape; white collar and economic crime; narcotics and immigration. Closes 12/26/2017.
Previous Friday Job Announcements: 12/08/17
Here is the amended complaint in Brakebill v. Jaeger (D.N.D.).
Here are the materials in Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Fryberg (W.D. Wash.):
Deadline for applications is January 31, 2018.
Law and Society Review has published Kirsten Matoy Carlson’s article, “Making Strategic Choices: How and Why Indian Groups Advocated for Federal Recognition from 1977 to 2012.” The full article is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lasr.12299/full.
Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Wells Fargo & Co. (D. N.M.):
Gregory Abalvsky has posted “‘With the Indian Tribes’: Race, Citizenship, and Original Constitutional Meanings,” forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
Under black-letter law declared in Morton v. Mancari, federal classifications of individuals as “Indian” based on membership in a federally recognized tribe rely on a political, not a racial, distinction, and so are generally subject only to rational-basis review. But the Supreme Court recently questioned this long-standing dichotomy, resulting in renewed challenges arguing that, because tribal membership usually requires Native ancestry, such classifications are race-based.
The term “Indian” appears twice in the original U.S. Constitution. A large and important scholarly literature has developed arguing that this specific constitutional inclusion of “Indian tribes” mitigates equal protection concerns. Missing from these discussions, however, is much consideration of these terms’ meaning at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. Most scholars have concluded that there is a lack of evidence on this point—a “gap” in the historical record.
This Essay uses legal, intellectual, and cultural history to close that “gap” and reconstruct the historical meanings of “tribe” and “Indian” in the late eighteenth century. Rather than a single “original meaning,” it finds duality: Anglo-Americans of the time also alternated between referring to Native communities as “nations,” which connoted equality, and “tribes,” which conveyed Natives’ purported uncivilized status. They also defined “Indians” both in racial terms, as non-white, and in jurisdictional terms, as non-citizens.
These contrasting meanings, I argue, have potentially important doctrinal implications for current debates in Indian law, depending on the interpretive approach applied. Although the term “tribe” had at times derogatory connotations, its use in the Constitution bolsters arguments emphasizing the significance of Native descent and arguably weakens current attacks on Native sovereignty based on invidious legal distinctions among Native communities. Similarly, there is convincing evidence to read “Indian” in the Constitution in political terms, justifying Morton’s dichotomy. But interpreting “Indian” as a “racial” category also provides little solace to Indian law’s critics, since it fundamentally undermines their insistence on a colorblind Constitution.