ICWA Challenge (legal)

The U.S. Supreme Court could reshape longstanding federal law on the adoption of Native American children, depending on how the justices rule in the case of a South Carolina family fighting for custody of their adopted daughter.

That law is at the center of the appeal by Matt and Melanie Capobianco, a Charleston-area couple who adopted a baby girl several years ago. But the girl's biological father — a member of the Cherokee Nation whom she had never met — later went to court seeking custody, arguing that the girl's mother gave her up without his consent.

Wisconsin Law (mascot)

‎2009 WISCONSIN ACT 250
An Act to amend 118.51 (13); and to create 118.134 of the statutes; relating to: the use of race-based nicknames, logos, mascots, and team names by school boards, providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures, requiring the exercise of rule-making authority, and providing a penalty.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. 118.134 of the statutes is created to read:
118.134 Race-based nicknames, logos, mascots, and team names. (1) Notwithstanding s. 118.13 and except as provided in sub. (3m), a school district resident may object to the use of a race-based nickname, logo, mascot, or team name by the school board of that school district by filing a complaint with the state superintendent. If the complainant objects to the use of a nickname or team name by the school board, the state superintendent shall immediately review the complaint and determine whether the use of the nickname or team name by the school board, alone or in connection with a logo or mascot, is ambiguous as to whether it is race-based. The state superintendent shall do all of the following:
(a) Notify the school board of the receipt of the complaint and of the state superintendent's determination regarding whether the use of the nickname or team name is ambiguous as to whether it is race-based and direct the school board to submit, if applicable, any of the information under sub. (1m) (a).
(b) Except as provided in sub. (1m), schedule a contested case hearing within 45 days after the complaint is filed.
(1m) (a) The state superintendent may determine that no contested case hearing is necessary or that a hearing date may be postponed for the purpose of obtaining additional information from the school board if, no later than 10 days after being notified of the receipt of the complaint, the school board submits evidence to the state superintendent that demonstrates all of the following:
1. The nickname, logo, mascot, or team name that is used by the school board and that is the basis of the complaint is a reference to or depiction or portrayal of or the name of a specific, federally recognized, American Indian tribe.
2. The federally recognized American Indian tribe under subd. 1. has granted approval to the school board to refer to or depict or portray the tribe in a nickname, logo, or mascot or to use the name of the tribe as a team name in the specific manner used by the school board and has not rescinded that approval.
3. The use of the nickname, logo, mascot, or team name that has been approved by the tribe as provided in subd. 2. is the use to which the school district resident objects in the complaint filed under sub. (1).
(b) If the state superintendent does any of the following, the state superintendent shall notify the school district resident who filed the complaint under sub. (1) and the school board of his or her decision in writing:
1. Determines that a contested case hearing is not necessary. A decision under this subdivision is subject to judicial review under ch. 227.
2. Postpones a hearing date as provided in par. (a).
(2) (a) Except as provided in par. (b), at the hearing, the school board has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the use of the race-based nickname, logo, mascot, or team name does not promote discrimination, pupil harassment, or stereotyping, as defined by the state superintendent by rule.
(b) 1. Except as provided in subd. 2., if the state superintendent determined under sub. (1) that the use of a nickname or team name by a school board is ambiguous as to whether it is race-based, the use of the nickname or team name by the school board shall be presumed to be not race-based and at the hearing the school district resident who filed the complaint under sub. (1) has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the use of the nickname or team name by the school board promotes discrimination, pupil harassment, or stereotyping, as defined by the state superintendent by rule.
2. If the state superintendent determined under sub. (1) that the use of a nickname or team name by a school board is ambiguous as to whether it is race-based but that the use of the nickname or team name in connection with a logo or mascot is race-based, at the hearing the school board has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the use of the nickname or team name in connection with the logo or mascot does not promote discrimination, pupil harassment, or stereotyping, as defined by the state superintendent by rule.
(3) (a) The state superintendent shall issue a decision and order within 45 days after the hearing. If the state superintendent finds that the use of the race-based nickname, logo, mascot, or team name does not promote discrimination, pupil harassment, or stereotyping, the state superintendent shall dismiss the complaint. Except as provided in par. (b), if the state superintendent finds that the use of the race-based nickname, logo, mascot, or team name promotes discrimination, pupil harassment, or stereotyping, the state superintendent shall order the school board to terminate its use of the race-based nickname, logo, mascot, or team name within 12 months after issuance of the order.
(b) 1. In this paragraph, "extenuating circumstances" includes circumstances in which the costs of compliance with an order issued under par. (a) pose an undue financial burden on the school district and circumstances in which the work or the requirements for bidding a contract to complete the work required to bring the school district into compliance with the order issued under par. (a) cannot be completed within 12 months after the issuance of the order.
2. a. If, at the hearing under sub. (2) or after a decision and order have been issued under par. (a), the school board presents evidence to the state superintendent that extenuating circumstances render full compliance with the decision and order within 12 months after the issuance of that decision and order impossible or impracticable, the state superintendent may issue an order to extend the time within which the school board must terminate its use of the race-based nickname, logo, mascot, or team name. Except as provided in subd. 2. b., the extension may not exceed 24 months and shall apply only to those portions of the decision and order to which extenuating circumstances apply.
b. The state superintendent may extend the time granted to a school board under subd. 2. a. if the school board presents evidence to the state superintendent that compliance with a portion of the decision and order issued under par. (a) may be accomplished through a regularly scheduled maintenance program and that the cost of compliance with that portion of the decision and order exceeds $5,000. The extension granted under this subd. 2. b. may not exceed 96 months and applies only to that portion of the decision and order with which compliance will be accomplished through the regularly scheduled maintenance program and that costs more than $5,000.
(c) Decisions of the state superintendent under this subsection are subject to judicial review under ch. 227.
(3m) A pupil attending a public school in a nonresident school district under s. 118.51 may not file a complaint under sub. (1) in which the pupil objects to the use of a race-based nickname, logo, mascot, or team name by the school board of the nonresident school district.
(4) The state superintendent shall promulgate rules necessary to implement and administer this section.
(5) Any school board that uses a race-based nickname, logo, mascot, or team name in violation of sub. (3) shall forfeit not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Each day of use of the race-based nickname, logo, mascot, or team name in violation of sub. (3) constitutes a separate violation.
Section 2. 118.51 (13) of the statutes is amended to read:
118.51 (13) Rights and privileges of nonresident pupils. A Except as provided in s. 118.134 (3m), a pupil attending a public school in a nonresident school district under this section has all of the rights and privileges of pupils residing in that school district and is subject to the same rules and regulations as pupils residing in that school district.
Section 3. Nonstatutory provisions.
(1) The department of public instruction shall submit in proposed form the rules required under section 118.134 (4) of the statutes, as created by this act, to the legislative council staff under section 227.15 (1) of the statutes no later than the first day of the 6th month beginning after the effective date of this subsection.
(2) Using the procedure under section 227.24 of the statutes, the department of public instruction may promulgate rules required under section 118.134 (4) of the statutes, as created by this act, for the period before the effective date of the rules submitted under subsection (1), but not to exceed the period authorized under section 227.24 (1) (c) and (2) of the statutes. Notwithstanding section 227.24 (1) (a), (2) (b), and (3) of the statutes, the department is not required to provide evidence that promulgating a rule under this subsection as an emergency rule is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or welfare and is not required to provide a finding of emergency for a rule promulgated under this subsection.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2009/related/acts/250

Time To Speak (legal)

Time for Alaska Native and Native Americans to Speak

By Terrance H. Booth, Sr.    Tsimshian

President Obama nominated another candidate Justice to US Supreme Court.  This nomination is U.S. Solicitor General and former Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court

All the Alaska Native and Native American Tribal Governments and tribal leadership and Native people need to voice their Native Perspective on the Candidate Justice to the US Supreme Court for this court over several decades has weaken tribal sovereignty. 

 The Trend of the U.S. Supreme Court….. “A roll of the United States Supreme Court throughout history is the protection of the rights of minorities. From the 1960s, throughout the 70s, and throughout most of the 80s the Supreme Court, in a really inspiring way, recognized Indian rights, recognized tribal sovereignty, fishing rights, the trust relationship and tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians. Those decades were times when tribes brought their grievances to the Court and by and large they were honored. But starting in the late 1980s there has been a change. Instead of the Supreme Court advancing Indian law in favor of tribal sovereignty, the Court has gone in a different direction, making a series of decisions which undermined tribal sovereignty. In the 1990s, tribes lost 23 out of 28 cases in which they appeared before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has moved away from guiding principles called ‘canons of construction.’ Under those guidelines, the Court would interpret treaties and Indian statutes in favor of the tribes when they were unclear or uncertain. It is one area of law that has always been useful to the tribes. The Supreme Court ever since Worcester, and all the way through the 19th and 20th centuries has recognized that Indian treaties and statutes should be construed in favor of the tribes. If there is unclear language, the Court interpreted those ambiguities in favor of the tribes.

For example, a treaty might say that the tribe has the right to hunt, and at treaty time the Indians were speaking their language and they didn’t have separate words for hunt and fish, they just had a word for gathering wild animals. Then the Court is going to say that ‘hunt’ means ‘hunt and fish.’ If there are unclear words they are read in favor of tribal rights. That rule is still alive in the Supreme Court, but the Court doesn’t use it with as much vigor as it did during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. The rule is important to tribes because many pieces of federal Indian law are ambiguous.” From: Tribal Nations The Story of Federal Indian Law,  by Lisa Jaeger Tanana Chiefs Conference 

“In Alaska US Supreme Court Ruled no tribal governing power over tribal lands “The U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled that, because of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the 1.8 million acres of land owned by the Venetie Tribe is no longer “Indian country,” as is reservation land in the Lower 48. Thus, the tribe, which includes the villages of Venetie and Arctic Village, has no governing power over the land.”  Alaska Culture & History, Juneau Empire by L. Thompson

“Many Indians are intensely caught in the current debate of issues. Individual Indians and groups in the Indian communities, while they may disagree on current tribal priorities and methods, must look beyond current disputes and support the concept of tribal sovereignty. Without sovereignty, there would be nothing to disagree upon. Without sovereign status, what would become of American Indian tribes?” American Indian Policy Center, Considerations for Tribes.

With each generation, there are new challenges about how we survive as American Indian people. The long history of assimilation, termination, and genocide policies is not over for Indian people. While the current threats to Indian tribal sovereignty outlined in this report have long-standing historical roots, U.S. Indian policy is now more elusive in the implementation of anti-Indian sentiment or assimilation efforts. The latest threat to Indian people is a national trend by states, the U.S. Congress, and the courts to undermine the legal foundations of tribal sovereignty. American Indian Policy Center

“The legal relationship between the United States and the respective Indian tribes is unique. Unlike all other political entities within the borders of the United States, Indian tribes derive their powers not solely through delegation, but also through their sovereign existence, past and present.” American Indian Policy Center

 Tribal Sovereignty Defined “However, over the history of the Tribes’ relations with the United States, Tribes have been economically devastated. Most have not had the financial means to effectively exercise their governmental powers. For some Tribes, Gaming has provided the only successful means to raise funds to be able to exercise their inherent powers of self-government.

Without Tribal sovereignty, and the financial means to exercise powers of self-government, Tribes would not survive as Indian Nations.”  Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe Council, Tribal Sovereignty Defined

To All Alaska Native and Native American Tribal Governments it is time again to voice our concerns and issues as the US Senate embarks upon making their appointment to the US Supreme Court.  As we already know the Court has been diminishing and weakening our tribal sovereignty.  And I know we will make our Native Perspectives to the US Senate who will have Confirmation hearings with Elena Kagan.  Let our Voices be heard. 

Hurt Offshore or On The River?
Call 800-773-6770-Know Your Rights!

Next Supreme Court Justice? (legal)

Jorge Rivas http://tinyurl.com/y7zs7xq

The Rumors Begin: Obama’s Next Supreme Court Nominee In an interview with The NY Times, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens confirmed rumors that he’s considering retiring. “I do have to fish or cut bait, just for my own personal peace of mind and also in fairness to the process,” he said. “The president and the Senate need plenty of time to fill a vacancy.”

Justice Stevens, who will turn 90 this month, was appointed in 1975 by President Gerald R. Ford. Rumors of his retirement escalated when he didn’t hire a full slate of law clerks for the current term. In an interview with USA TODAY in October last year, he said the fact that he had not hired a full staff “can’t be news. I’m not exactly a kid.”

Who will replace Justice Stevens? Naturally a new set of rumors is thriving. Business Week is reporting there are three leading contenders: U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal appellate judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland.”

The Nation even has a slideshow of their own top choices for the next Supreme Court nominee that is worth a look. They list some of the same predictions mentioned above, but also interesting contenders like John Echohawk who has run the Native American Rights Fund for more than thirty years and who “would bring a perspective to the court that has been overlooked for 230 years.”

Celebrate 40 Years of NARF (legal/community)

Settlement Reached In Yup'ik Language and Voter Assistance Case by the State of Alaska, Native American Rights Fund, Northern Justice Project and American Civil Liberties Union

Back row: Joe Alexie (Tuluksak Tribal Council), Jason Brandeis (Alaska ACLU), Peter Andrew (Tuluksak Tribal Council), Michael Martin (Kasigluk Traditional Council), Jim Tucker (attorney), Nick David (Tuntutuliak Tribal Council) Front row: Jim Davis (attorney), Leo Beaver (Kasigluk Traditional Council), Robert Enoch (Tuntutuliak Tribal Council), Natalie Landreth (NARF Attorney) and Elsie Nichols (Kasigluk Traditional Council)

Read More >

 
NARF Development Director Receives Award


NARF Development Director Carly Hare was honored by the Boulder County Business Report’s “Forty Under 40.” This award recognizes young entrepreneurs at local clean-energy companies to up-and-coming leaders in the nonprofit sector, from banking executives to real estate professionals. These individuals are the rising stars of the Boulder Valley.

While Carly Hare was program director for the Community Foundation serving Boulder and Broomfield Counties, she was the driving force behind the foundation’s Expanding Leadership Initiative, with a mission of increasing the representation of people of color on the boards and the staff of nonprofit organizations. Now in her new role at the Native American Rights Fund, she has the potential to impact the national scene as well.

Read More >

 
Honoring 40 Years of Standing Firm for Justice

null


Throughout 2010, we will provide a timeline of the growth and impact of the Native American Rights Fund. We will chronicle NARF events, important cases that set precedence and the cases that challenged sovereignty. Each E-Action Newsletter we will continue this story from our initial work through the cases and issues we are working on today.

Read More 1970-1973 >

 
Special Offer


Buy a NARF Logo t-shirt, track jacket or messenger bag, receive a 2010 NARF wall calendar for free. Offer good while supplies last.

More >


March 2010

Settlement Reached in Yup'ik Language and Voter Assistance Case

NARF Develpment Director
Receives Award

Honoring 40 Years of Standing Firm
For Justice

Christmas narf store ad

narf doc image

ICWA cover



Supreme Court Rejects Case (mascot)

Suzan Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc., a case that began in 1992, centered on whether a dispute over a potentially offensive trademark can be dismissed if the challenge was not filed promptly. Though the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in 1999 that the name was disparaging and should be changed, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. later decided that the challengers had waited too long to file their petition. The Redskins first registered the mascot with the Patent and Trademark Office in 1967.  Full story at: http://tinyurl.com/yzo6oeu