10th Annual William C. Canby Jr. Lecture – The Bears Ears National Monument: A Breakthrough for Tribal-Federal Collaborative Management on Federal Public Lands

Hot Topic!!  New Designation of Bear Ears National Monument from President Barack Obama 

Public Lecture followed by Reception – Open to the Public.  Please RSVP.
Free CLE – 0.75 General CLE Credit will be offered.

2017canby-flier_wilkinson_sdoc-logoilp-wordmark

Can International Law Support Changes to Federal Indian Policy? Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Conference

April 19, 2013 – 8:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University
Great Hall, Armstrong Hall, 1100 S. McAllister Avenue, Tempe, AZ  85287
Free and Open to the Public – Registration requested.

Keynote Speaker:  S. James Anaya, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Agenda and registration online at:  http://conferences.asucollegeoflaw.com/drip/
Contact:  Darlene Lester / darlene.lester@asu.edu / 480-965-7715
Sponsored by the Indian Legal Program & the Center for Law and Global Affairs at ASU
CLE Registration $150.00 is available for Attorneys seeking  CLE credits.
CLE Credits: 5 CLE Credits for AZ & CA, 5.5  MCLE credits for NM
Live Web-streaming at:  http://law.asu.edu/undrip2013

Please Join Us!  Please help us spread the word about this important conference . 

 

 

Tempe Attorney Howard Shanker speaking in Natural Resources Law Seminar

Tempe Attorney Howard Shanker, who represented the Navajo Nation and others in litigation opposing the use of reclaimed wastewater for snowmaking on the San Francisco Peaks, will be speaking to Joe Feller’s Natural Resources Law Field Seminar on Thursday, May 10, at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at 2:00 p.m. in Room 110. ILP Faculty, staff, students and alum are all invited to attend.

Gonzalez v. State of Arizona

Gonzalez v. State of Arizona, No. 08-17094

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/enbanc/08-17094pfr.pdf

Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by the State of Arizona and Arizona Secretary of State:

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 624 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 2011 WL 1651242 (9th Cir. April 27, 2011)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: April 27, 2011

Status: Calendared June 21, 2011 at 2:00 p.m., Pasadena, California.

Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available

Subject Matter: Appeal by Arizona residents and Indian tribes in consolidated actions challenging validity of state Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and proof of identification to vote in person at polls.

Amicus Brief in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder

The Indian Legal Clinic and Sacks Tierney filed an amici brief in the above-reference case regarding the constitutionality of the Section 5 preclearance requirements. Indian Legal Clinic Student Attorney Nikki Borchardt (3L), Adjunct Professor and ASU Alum Judy Dworkin and Professor Patty Ferguson Bohnee prepared the brief.

Brief of the Navajo Nation, Anthony Wounded Head, et al. Amici are concerned that if the Court declares that the reauthorization of Section 5 is unconstitutional, American Indian voting rights will be significantly impacted and result in a reversal of the strides made in recent years to ensure greater Indian voter participation. This would negatively impact many American Indian voters who only recently secured the right to vote, continue to face discrimination in voting, and who cannot shoulder the financial burden to bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA.

Carcieri v. Salazar

Court rules for state in American Indian land case
The Associated Press
Tuesday, February 24, 2009; 10:12 AM

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has limited the federal government’s authority to hold land in trust for Indian tribes, a victory for states seeking to impose local laws and control over development on Indian lands.The court’s ruling Tuesday applies to tribes recognized by the federal government after the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.The U.S. government argued that the law allows it to take land into trust for tribes regardless of when they were recognized, but Justice Clarence Thomas said in his majority opinion that the law “unambiguously refers to those tribes that were under the federal jurisdiction” when it was enacted.The ruling comes in a case involving the Narragansett Indian Tribe in Rhode Island and a 31-acre tract of land.The case is Carcieri v. Salazar, 07-526.

New 9th Circuit opinion

The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Reinhardt and a dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski, held that a Blackfeet descendant was not an Indian for the purposes of criminal prosecution under the Major Crimes Act. The Court found that Cruz, a Blakfeet and a Canadian Blood Indian, did not meet the second prong of its test set forth in U.S. v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). The four factors under the second prong include: 1) tribal enrollmnent; 2) government recognition through receipt of benefits reserved to Indians; 3) enjoyment of benefits due to tribal affiliation; and 4) social recognition. Although Cruz is a descendant of a Blackfeet, Cruz is not an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe and did not take advantage of any benefits reserved for Indians. Although Cruz lived on the reservation for a short time as a child, attended public school on the reservation and worked on the reservation, the Court did not find that these facts could satisfy any of the four factors under Bruce’s second prong.

The decision can be found at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/02/10/0730384.pdf.