 |
|
|
Last updated: November 19, 2009
Next update should be ready by: December 3, 2009
Selected Indian Law Cases Discovered: Through November 19, 2009
Please alert us to any
cases we may have missed from the U.S. Federal Trial Courts.
Yancey v. Thomas
2009 WL 3837405
No. CIV-09-597-C
United States Dictrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma, November 16, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff is a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Indian Nation of Oklahoma. He is the father of Baby Boy L., who was born out of wedlock on October 4, 2002. In July 2002, the mother, who is not of Indian descent, decided to place the baby for adoption. Shortly after the birth, the Prospective Adoptive Parents took the child to Missouri, where he has since resided. On October 10, 2002, the mother relinquished her parental rights in Oklahoma County. On December 26, 2002, an adoption petition was filed in Cleveland County. The Plaintiff's parental rights were terminated and he appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, claiming that the trial court erred in holding that the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq. (“the Act”), did not apply. The Supreme Court agreed, reversing the termination of the Plaintiff's parental rights.
*Holding: not yet available
Brown v. Hawaii
2009 WL 3818233
No. 07-00556 ACK-LEK
United States District Court, Hawaii, November 13, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This action was initiated on November 11, 2007. Following two rounds of motions to dismiss, on March 12, 2009, Plaintiff David Brown filed a third amended complaint asserting, among other things, a claim under the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (“NAGPRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq. , against Defendants the State of Hawai‘i (“State”), Melanie Chinen, in her official capacity as the former Administrator of the State Historic Preservation Division (“SHPD”) of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DLNR”), Nancy McMahon, in her official capacity as the then-current Administrator of SHPD, and Laura Thielen, in her official capacity as the Director of the DLNR
*Holding: not yet available
Boye v. United States
2009 WL 3824371
No. 07-195 C
United States Court of Federal Claims, November 12, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) [P]laintiffs allege that they have not been paid the wages and benefits to which they are entitled pursuant to various self-determination contracts executed by their employer, the Navajo Nation, and the United States Department of the Interior (“Department of the Interior”). They bring their claim as purported third-party beneficiaries. Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). As explained in more detail below, the court grants defendant's motion.
*Holding: not yet available
Chippewa v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho
2009 WL 3762328
No. CV-09-57-E-BLW
United States District Court, Idaho, November 9, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Chippewa is seeking a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 to order the Tribal Court to respond to his pending motions to dismiss the detainer lodged against him and to run the Tribal Court charges concurrently with the federal sentence “as agreed upon.” The Court cannot grant the requested relief.
*Holding: not yet available
Pearson v. Chugach Government Services, Inc.
2009 WL 3757370
No. 09-227
United States District Court, Deleware, November 6, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The question before the Court is one of first impression: whether the Title VII exemption for Alaskan Native Corporations, provided for in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, is broad enough to preclude related employment discrimination claims raised under the ADA and the FMLA. The answer to this question lies at the confluence of two powerful federal interests. On one hand, the federal government has recognized the quasi-sovereignty of Native American tribes and tribal entities. Towards that end, Congress and the Supreme Court have established exemptions and immunities to provide social and political space for Native American self-governance and self-determination. On the other hand, Congress has recognized the obstacles and injustice of discrimination, and promulgated an interlocking web of statutory prohibitions to reduce and eliminate the harms of employment discrimination. From the outset, the Court recognizes this opinion must reconcile these competing federal mandates.
*Holding: not yet available
Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate v. United States Department of State
2009 WL 3153655
No. 08-3023
United States District Court, South Dakota, September 29, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: Indian tribes brought action against United States Department of State and various officials therein, arising out of planned construction of oil pipeline across the border of Canada into the United States. Defendants moved to dismiss.
*Holding: The District Court, Kornmann, J., held that:
(1) Indian tribes lacked standing to challenge permit;
(2) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) did not provide private cause of action;
(3) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) did not provide private cause of action; and
(4) actions taken pursuant to executive order were presidential in nature.
Motion granted.
|
|
|
|
A service of the National Indian Law Library of the Native
American Rights Fund
Text highlighted in blue
are links to information available on the Internet free of charge.
Text highlighted in green are
links to information available on Westlaw, for the convenience of
those who have a Westlaw account. Please contact the National Indian
Law Library if you need help obtaining legal documents.
The National Indian Law Library and Native American Rights Fund are not
affiliated with Westlaw. See www.westlaw.com for
more information about the Westlaw legal databases.
* Synopsis and holding provided under an agreement with Westlaw.com
www.westlaw.com
|
|
