The deadline to implement, or be deemed capable of doing so in a reasonable amount of time, is July 27, 2011.

The National Indian Health Board and a consortium of Tribes and Tribal agencies have filed an amicus brief in the “Obamacare” lawsuit, where a federal judge in Florida ruled the federal government’s landmark healthcare reform unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed after President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is designed to provide health care coverage to all Americans.

The primary issue in the lawsuit, which is now on appeal, is whether the Constitution allows the federal government to require individual Americans to purchase health care insurance. Over two dozen states joined together to oppose the reform legislation, arguing that the federal government does not have the power to compel individuals to purchase health care insurance. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Florida, and the trial judge ruled the legislation unconstitutional. The matter is now being reviewed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Within the federal health care reform legislation, there are sections that provide significant benefits for Native American health care programs. The legislation permanently re-authorized the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which provides funding and administrative support for health care in Native communities throughout the country. In their amicus brief, Tribes have asserted that the portions of the health care legislation that impact Native Americans are constitutional and should be “severed” from any portions of the legislation that are ultimately determined to be unconstitutional. That would allow for funding and other improvements to Tribal health care to continue even if other portions of the new law are overturned.

Interestingly, the portions of the law applicable to Native American health care actually provide and exemption for Native Americans from the individual insurance purchase requirement – which is consistent with the goals of the states seeking to have the new laws overturned. This provides a potential opportunity for agreement between the states and Tribes, where all sides could concur on the validity of the sections that improve health care for Native communities.

Open Pit Coal Mine (Tribal Energy and Environmental Information Clearinghouse)

Chickaloon Native Village, a federally-recognized Athabascan Indian Tribal government in Alaska, filed a communication to the United Nations Independent Expert on the human right to water and sanitation, seeking help in stopping a new open-pit coal mine in the Village’s traditional territory.

Chickaloon Village’s submission asserts that the new mine proposed by the Usibelli Corporation would contaminate local drinking water sources as well as rivers, streams and groundwater that support salmon, moose and other animals and plants vital for subsistence, religious and cultural practices. The US Federal Government and the State of Alaska have, to date, not responded to Chickaloon’s firmly-stated opposition to the mine.

The visit to the US by the Independent Expert, Mrs. Catarina de Albuquerque, a Portuguese human rights expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, includes stops in Washington DC, Boston Massachusetts and Northern California, where she will meet with the Winnemem Wintu and other Indigenous representatives. Her US visit will end on March 2, 2011.

Mrs. De Albuquerque will meet with the US State Department and relevant Federal agencies as well organizations, communities and experts to receive information regarding the human right to water and sanitation and the federal and state policies and practices that affect this right. She is expected to make recommendations to the US government at the conclusion of her visit.

Explaining the reasons behind Chickaloon’s filing, Traditional Chief Gary Harrison stated: "International standards like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognize our inherent sacred right to protect our water and keep it clean for the animals, fish and future generations of our Nation. Our right to water is the same as our right to life. We can’t sit back and allow our human right to water to be violated again".
 

The President has announced a change to the United States’ status as the sole holdout in supporting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating:

“And as you know, in April we announced that we were reviewing our position on the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And today I can announce that the United States is lending its support to this Declaration.”

The President’s remarks came during the close of the second Tribal Nations Conference held by the White House. His full statement on the Declaration and other Tribal issues can be viewed HERE.

While the statement declares a change in US policy, there will be much practical work required to implement the provisions of the Declaration and assess its impact on relations between the federal government and Tribal communities.

The International Code Council is mounting an effort to create an amendment to Section 408(d) of the Tribal Self Government Act of 2010, HR4347, that has passed the House and is currently pending in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. The purpose is to help preserve the sovereign right of Tribes to establish building codes that best serve their infrastructure development needs, rather than having these codes dictated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Currently, HR 4347 Section 408(d)(1) provides:

"d) Codes and Standards- In carrying out a construction project under this title, an Indian tribe shall--
(1) adhere to applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal building codes, architectural and engineering standards, and applicable Federal guidelines regarding design, space, and operational standards, appropriate for the particular project…"

This language assumes that the codes and standards adopted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are the same as, or consistent with, the codes and standards adopted by the Tribes, or by the jurisdictions in which Tribal construction projects are taking place. This is not always the case, as the BIA has adopted a building code (NFPA 5000) that is not currently in use by Tribes. If the BIA requires compliance with this code, which is inconsistent in certain areas with the International Building Code used by many Tribes, it could cause significant delays and increase the Tribe’s design and engineering costs.

The language the ICC is recommending to amend H.R. 4347 is as follows, to be added at the end of the first sentence of Sec 408 (d)(1):

"Where the applicable Federal guidelines or building code conflict with the building code adopted by the Tribe, the Tribal code shall be adhered to."

The adoption of by Tribes of civil codes for building projects and other activities is an important measure for the preservation of sovereignty. Federal agencies will more readily seek to impose their authority on Tribal activities if a Tribe does not have its own regulations in place to govern that activity. More information on this legislative effort regarding Tribal building codes is available from the ICC’s website.
 

Eric Eberhard, Distinguished Indian Law Practitioner in Residence at the Seattle University Center for Indian Law and Policy, has published an 862-page treatise on the principles and issues involved in Tribal trust lands. The treatise was produced in conjunction with the University’s law conference entitled “Perspectives on Tribal Land Acquisitions in 2010: A Call to Action”, and provides in-depth discussions of the legal background and current developments of Tribes’ quest to preserve and protect their traditional lands.

The treatise can be downloaded HERE, and CD copies can be obtained by contacting the Seattle University Center for Indian Law and Policy.

Professor Eberhard also serves as Vice-Chair of the American Bar Association’s Native American Concerns Committee, and is leading the organizational effort to create a new academic law journal focused exclusively on legal issues affecting Native Americans.

San Francisco Peaks, Arizona (Al Hikes)

The legal battle over whether fake snow can be sprayed by a ski resort in Arizona’s 12,000-foot-high San Francisco Peaks has a new venue: the Flagstaff City Council. Tribal elders, U.S. senators, federal judges and senior Obama Administration officials all have weighed in on the controversy of artificially applying frozen water to land where the Hopi, Navajo and 11 other tribes trace their origins. Many Native Americans believe it is sacrilege for skiers and snowboarders to use the area for recreation, and more so for the ski resort owners to tamper with the natural surroundings. The Arizona Snowbowl resort says it's just trying to run a business.

The Snowbowl ski area is located on 777 acres in the Coconino National Forest. Tribes have been battling the resort since the 1970s. For the second time in 20 years, the U.S. Supreme Court last year refused to hear their case, and now the matter will be reviewed by the Flagstaff City Council. Local officials are to vote on whether to pump potable recycled water to the resort to make snow. It's unclear whether this will be acceptable to the Tribes, who were infuriated by a previous plan to use treated sewer water.

"This mountain is where life began; it created us," says Rex Tilousi, a leader of the Havasupai tribe. Native Americans journey to the peaks to collect herbs for traditional healing and worship deities they believe dwell there. Dumping artificial snow there, says Mr. Tilousi, is "like bombing a church."

For the operators of Snowbowl, artificial snow is necessary to ensre a steady ski season, which is the basis for hundreds of local jobs. "If you don't have snowmaking, the question is not if you will go out of business; it's when you will go out of business," says Eric Borowsky, the resort's owner. "We only occupy 1% of the peaks. Can't we share this?"

After years of environmental review detailed in a 600-page report, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, which oversees the federal land that the resort sits on, approved the artificial snow plan in 2005.  If the new plan to use potable water goes through, the federal government may contribute funds to off set the cost increase compared to the use of treated sewage. Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl sent a letter in March condemning "the use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize snowmaking at Arizona Snowbowl." At the same time, they called on the government to grant Snowbowl permission to start its expansion "immediately."

You can complete this needs assessment survey online HERE, or through the NRC4Tribes website: www.NRC4Tribes.org.  Please note that the deadline to complete the NRC4Tribes TA Needs Assessment has been extended to September 7th.

We encourage you to submit your comments and forward this survey to anyone in your community who has an interest in child and family services for Native communities, including:

* Tribal leaders
* Tribal child welfare staff
* Tribal law enforcement personnel
* Tribal court personnel, health service agency staff
* Tribal community program staff
* Tribal families involved in the child welfare system
* Tribal foster parents, kinship providers, youth, community members,
* Anyone interested in Tribal child welfare services

For more information concerning the NRC4Tribes and/or the NRC4Tribes TA needs assessment, please see www.NRC4Tribes.org.
 

Federal Judge Richard Roberts has dismissed a lawsuit filed by 20 descendants of legendary Apache leader Geronimo to recover partial remains they allege were stolen by the Skull and Bones Society at Yale University.  Skull and Bones is famous for well-connected members such as both Presidents Bush, and the society's lore claims that the organization possesses Geronimo's skull.

The lawsuit alleged that Geronimo's remains were stolen in 1918 from his burial plot at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where he died in 1909.  The decision to dismiss was based in part on the Judge's finding that the law under which the plaintiffs sought to recover the remains only applied to Native artifacts that were improperly appropriated after 1990. 

The long-awaited amendments to the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 have been completed and passed by both the House and Senate, and President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law shortly. The new law enacts numerous changes to the rules, process, and funding for the administration of justice in Tribal communities, and it specifically --

Increases the maximum authorized criminal sentence in a Tribal Court to three years, if the defendant has or is provided an attorney and other federal criminal procedure rules are followed.

Replaces the Division of Law Enforcement Services in the Department of the Interior with the Office of Justice Services in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and sets forth duties including - (1) communicating with tribal leaders, tribal community and victims' advocates, trial justice officials, and residents of Indian land on a regular basis regarding public safety and justice concerns; (2) providing technical assistance and training to tribal law enforcement officials for gaining access to crime information databases; (3) collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on crimes in Indian country on an annual basis; (4) sharing with the Department of Justice crime data received from tribal law enforcement agencies on a tribe-by-tribe basis; and (5) submitting to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs a spending report on tribal public safety and justice programs and a report on technical assistance and training provided to tribal law enforcement and corrections agencies.

Directs the Secretary of the Interior to submit to Congress a long-term plan to address incarceration in Indian country.

Authorizes BIA law enforcement officers to make warrantless arrests in Indian country based on probable cause for misdemeanor offenses involving controlled substances, firearms, assaults, or liquor trafficking.

Expands requirements for reporting by federal law enforcement officers, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and United States Attorneys to Indian tribes on decisions not to investigate or prosecute alleged violations of federal criminal law in Indian country.

Requires the Attorney General to submit annual reports to Congress on investigations and prosecutions in Indian country that were terminated or declined.

Authorizes the Attorney General to appoint tribal prosecutors and other qualified attorneys to assist in prosecuting federal crimes committed in Indian country. Requires each United States Attorney whose district includes Indian country to appoint at least one assistant United States Attorney to serve as a tribal liaison for specified purposes, including coordinating the prosecution of federal crimes that occur in Indian country, combating child abuse and domestic and sexual violence against Indians, and providing technical assistance and training on evidence gathering techniques.

Establishes in the Executive Office for United States Attorneys the position of Native American Issues Coordinator, to coordinate with United States Attorneys in prosecuting crimes in Indian country.

Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) establish a prescription drug monitoring program at the health care facilities of the Indian Health Service, tribal health care facilities, and urban Indian health care facilities; and (2) report to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on such program.

Directs the Attorney General, in conjunction with the HHS Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior, to: (1) conduct an assessment of the capacity of federal and tribal agencies to carry out data collection and analysis relating to prescription drug abuse in Indian communities; (2) provide training to Indian health care providers and other Indian tribal officials to promote awareness and prevention of such abuse and strategies for improving agency responses to addressing it; and (3) report to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on prescription drug abuse prevention activities.

Native Lacrosse Players, Circa 1845

UPDATE: The State Department has now agreed to allow Iroquois players and team officials to travel under Iroquois Nation passports, which clears the way for the team's participation in the tournament.  The team still needs to catch a trans-Atlantic flight on Wednesday July 14th to compete in its first game on the 15th.

A thousand years ago, the Iroquois Nation invented the game of lacrosse. Yet despite having created the game and shared it with the world, the Iroquois may be kept out of this year’s World Championship for their sport due to U.S. visa problems.

Teams from 30 nations are scheduled to participate in the World Lacrosse Championships in England. In a positive example of international recognition of Native sovereignty, the Iroquois participate at every tournament as a sovereign nation. The problem this year is a dispute regarding the players’ passports. The 23 players have passports issued by the Iroquois Confederacy, a group of six Tribal nations stretching from upstate New York into Ontario, Canada. The U.S. government says it will let players back into the country only if they have U.S. passports. The British government, meanwhile, won't give the players entry visas if they cannot guarantee they'll be allowed to go home.

The team has been traveling on Iroquois passports for the past 20 years, and Iroquois passport-holders have been using them to go abroad since 1977, said Denise Waterman, a member of the team's board of directors. Within the last year, colleagues used their Iroquois passports to travel to Japan and Sweden, she said. In the past, U.S. immigration officials accepted the Iroquois passports when they obtained visas — including trips to Britain in 1985 and 1994, and in 2002 to Australia. The 2006 tournament was in Canada, and the team had no cross-border issues.

The new dispute can be traced to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which went into effect last year. The new rules require that Americans carry passports or new high-tech documents to cross the border. "Since they last traveled on their own passports, the requirements in terms of the kind of documents that are necessary to facilitate travel within and outside the hemisphere have changed," Crowley said. "We are trying to help them get the appropriate travel documents so they can travel to this tournament."

Iroquois team members born within U.S. borders have been offered U.S. passports, but the players refused. They see the documents as an attack on their identity, said Tonya Gonnella Frichner, a member of the Onondaga Nation who works with the team. "It's about sovereignty, citizenship and self-identification," said Frichner, who also is the North American regional representative to the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

One Iroquois player, Brett Bucktooth, said he would rather miss the tournament than travel under a U.S. passport: "That's the people we are, and that's our identity."

Today, the Iroquois team is ranked No. 4 by the Federation of International Lacrosse and represents the Haudenosaunee — an Iroquois Confederacy of the Oneida, Seneca, Mohawk, Tuscarora, Cayuga and Onondaga nations.
 

In 1637, the land that is now known as the town of Mystic, Connecticut was the site of a fierce battle between the Pequot Nation and English settlers resulted in an historic massacre that shaped future relations between Tribes and colonists. Today, researchers are combing the site with metal detectors and archaeological tools to unearth the history behind one of the pivotal events of pre-American history in the region.

The work is funded through grants from the National Park Service’s American Battlefield Protection Program, and is designed to map the battlefields of the Pequot War and unearth artifacts for historical display. Consistent with a Congressional report that found 62 percent of known American battlefields are located on private lands, much of the Pequot battlefield area is now residential property. This has caused some homeowners to fear that the government or the neighboring Pequot Tribes may seek to seize their land if historic materials are found. In reality, researchers only access sites with the express permission of landowners, and none of the land is taken over or otherwise restricted by the government.

“I am absolutely committed to moving forward with you and forging a new and better future together. It’s a commitment that’s deeper than our unique nation-to-nation relationship. It’s a commitment to getting this relationship right, so that you can be full partners in America’s economy, and so your children and grandchildren can have an equal shot at pursuing the American dream.” -- President Obama

 
During the White House Tribal Nations Conference in November 2009, President Obama met with leaders invited from all 564 federally recognized Tribes to forge a stronger relationship with Tribal governments. Acknowledging the history of marginalization of Native people, of promises broken and treaties violated, and of failed government solutions, President Obama called for a new and better future in which Tribal nations are full partners.

The President signed a memorandum at the conference directing Federal agencies to submit detailed plans of actions on how they intend to secure regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials for policy development. Agencies are currently in the process of implementing these plans. In the interim, the White House has released a Progress Report that provides details on the status of federal programs designed to address issues of concern for Tribal communities. The report can be accessed HERE.
 

Open Pit Uranium Mine, Wyoming

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has rejected the EPA’s claim that it has primary permitting authority over uranium mining on property near Tribal lands, limiting the federal government’s reach over this controversial mining in major uranium producing states – many of which are also home to Tribal communities.

The Court’s June 16, 2010 ruling in Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI) v. EPA, et al., sides with industry arguments that the site of a particular uranium mine in New Mexico is not located on Tribal land because it falls outside the Navajo Nation’s boundaries. The EPA had argued for a broader standard which would allow it to regulate uranium mining anywhere that is considered “Indian Country” under federal law, even if the property was outside the defined boundaries of a Reservation. A result of the Court’s decision is that regulation of such mines will be left to state law, which is not consistent from state to state.

In its published opinion, the Court noted: “EPA argued . . . that we should cast our gaze beyond the particular land in question. In the Agency’s view, because some sufficiently significant (though unspecified) percentage of neighboring lands -- what EPA calls ‘the community of reference’ -- is Indian country, HRI’s land must be considered Indian country, too.” The Court stated that the EPA’s analysis presupposes “that every piece of land is part of some community of reference,” but the Court rejected that argument.

The ruling is particularly significant because it was issued by the court which oversees Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico, all of which are important energy and mineral-producing states and which also have large regions of Tribal lands.
 

Responding to chronic failures to accurately account for Native populations in past years, the Census Bureau has actively sought to improve its outreach for the 2010 Census. The Bureau got an early start and partnered with Tribes throughout the country to connect with Tribal members. The initial results indicate a significant increase in the response rate for Tribal members, which should result in better federal representation for Native communities. The information the Census collects helps to determine the allocation of more than $400 billion dollars of federal funding each year, for projects such as hospitals, schools, emergency services, and transportation.

The Bureau partnered with groups such as the National Congress of American Indians and took a government-to-government approach, making formal presentations to all 564 federally recognized Tribes and asking permission to conduct operations on Tribal lands.

A prime example of the improved accounting in Native communities is found with the Tulalip Tribes, whose Census return rate by last month had hit 70 percent — even before Census workers started their direct outreach to individual Tribal members. In 2000, the Tulalip final return rate was 54 percent.

The Tulalip Tribes plan a news conference to thank the Bureau for its efforts. "We're deeply appreciative of the Census Bureau for understanding that Indian Country was underrepresented 10 years ago," said Tulalip Tribal Chairman Mel Sheldon. "We do not forget our history, it hasn't always been the best of relationships ... but there's a new era here, and we're looking forward with optimism." 

Seigning Salmon In The Columbia River, Circa 1914

The federal government has issued its final program for restoring endangered salmon on the Columbia River -- a plan that will have substantial impact on the rights and livelihood of the Tribes that comprise the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.

The administration’s revised plan has been updated to reflect new scientific studies and incorporate a flexible "adaptive management" strategy for quick implementation of stronger protective measures if needed. Officials hope that will be sufficient to prevent another rejection of its plans by the federal court overseeing the matter. "While much attention has focused on the courtroom, the region should be proud of what the federal government, states, Tribes and communities together have accomplished for fish," the agencies said in a statement releasing the opinion. "Last year alone, 9,609 miles of wetland habitat were protected and 244 miles of streams were reopened to fish. We've made much progress, and completion of this legal process now prepares us to make much more."

Conservationists had hoped the plan would be much bolder, with less emphasis on hatchery fish and stronger attention to the possibility of breaching dams on the Snake River in eastern Washington that cut off salmon from miles of pristine potential habitat.  The primary argument against the removal of dams is the negative impact on electricity generation, since the Northwest receives a significant portion of its power from hydroelectric sources.

The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission is comprised of the fish and wildlife committees of the Yakama, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Nez Perce tribes. The Tribes have treaty-guaranteed fishing rights and management authority in their traditional fishing areas.
 

May 11, 2010

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

RE: Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s Nomination to the Supreme Court

Dear Mr. President:

Congratulations on your nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the United State Supreme Court. We are pleased you chose a woman, and clearly General Kagan is a well qualified jurist. NNABA does not currently have a position on General Kagan’s nomination. We are not yet familiar with her experience with Tribal nations or Federal Indian law. However, we very much look forward to hearing from General Kagan about her views on the Constitutional status of Tribes and the protection of Native American rights. We would like to extend an invitation for General Kagan to meet with NNABA and invite her to Indian Country to visit one of our Nations, to visit our Tribal courts, and meet with our elected Tribal leaders.

Importance of Working Knowledge of Federal Indian law.

Due to the unique Constitutional status of Native American Tribes, a disproportionate percentage of cases before the Supreme Court deal with Tribes and Indian law issues. In addition, federal court decisions often disproportionately affect Natives. Most Indian reservation lands continue to be under “federal trust” and federal criminal law applies in conjunction with tribal law. The Supreme Court oversees this relationship with Tribes and the Federal treaty and trust responsibility to Tribal citizens. There are over 560 federally-recognized Tribes in the United States, located in 35 out of the 50 states.

No Native American Supreme Court Justice, Federal Judge, Or Supreme Court Clerk.

A Native American has never served on the Supreme Court, there is not currently a Native on the federal bench and to the best our knowledge there have been almost no Native American Supreme Court clerks.

NNABA continues to be hopeful that your administration will nominate a Native to the federal bench, and we appreciate any efforts to ensure that all of your federal nominees have a strong working knowledge of Federal Indian law.

Respectfully,

Lael Echo-Hawk
President, National Native American Bar Association

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has approved the nation's first offshore wind farm, despite strong opposition from the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and environmental groups. The 130 turbines are to be located several miles from the Massachusetts shore in the waters of Nantucket Sound, which Wampanoag consider part of their sacred cultural heritage.

Salazar declared that Cape Wind, as the project is known, is the start of a "new energy frontier."
"Cape Wind will be the nation's first offshore wind farm, supplying clean power to homes and businesses in Massachusetts, plus creating good jobs here in America," he said. "This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast."

"The United States is leading a clean energy revolution that is reshaping our future," Salazar said in announcing the project’s approval. "Cape Wind is an opening of a new chapter in that future, and we are all part of that history."

He did not make reference to another history – the Wampanoag spiritual ritual of greeting the sunrise which requires unobstructed views across the sound, and that their ancestral burial grounds are located in the area. The Wampanoag tribes — whose name translates to “people of the first light” — said their view to the east across Nantucket Sound was integral to their identity and cultural traditions. “Here is where we still arrive to greet the new day, watch for celestial observations in the night sky and follow the migration of the sun and stars in change with the season,” wrote Bettina Washington, historic preservation officer for the Aquinnah Wampanoag, in a letter to federal officials. The Tribes also argued that the wind turbines, which will be 440 feet tall, could destroy long-submerged tribal artifacts from thousands of years ago, when the sound was dry land. Such artifacts could “yield further confirmation of our cultural histories,” according to Ms. Washington.
 

With Justice John Paul Stevens announcing his retirement from the US Supreme Court this year, the Obama administration will have the opportunity to appoint a second new jurist to the bench. The Tribal Supreme Court Project is hoping the new appointee will help reverse a disturbing trend – Tribal interests losing nearly every case that comes before the Court.

"We view this Court as not favorable on our issues," explained Richard Guest, senior staff attorney at the Native American Rights Fund. "We had a winning percentage from 2001 to 2005 but now we're back to a situation where we are zero for five."

There is a concern that certain justices have an agenda in Indian law cases, he added, noting that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. has been quoted as asking what is so special about Indian tribes and their relationship to the United States. "If this Court grants review, it appears to not only look to decide the case in front of it, but to extend any ruling to future cases," said Guest.

This view is supported by a 2009 empirical study done by Matthew Fletcher of Michigan State University College of Law: "Factbound and Splitless: Certiorari and Indian Law." From 1959, considered the beginning of the modern era of federal Indian law, to 1987, when the Supreme Court decided the major Indian gaming case, California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, reported Fletcher, Indians and Indian tribes won nearly 60 percent of federal Indian law cases. Since the Cabazon decision, the Supreme Court has decided against tribal interests in more than 75 percent of cases.
 

(Itsnature.org)

Canadian Inuit have filed a lawsuit in the European General Court to overturn EU legislation banning the import of seal products into EU countries. The lawsuit seeks annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and Council of September 16, 2009 on trade in seal products. The lawsuit comes as the annual seal hunt in the Canadian arctic is beginning, with the Canadian government authorizing hunters (including Inuit) to take up to 330,000 seals.

In adopting its seal products trade legislation, the EU held out the possibility of a partial exemption for seals hunted by Inuit. While the prospect of this exemption may have persuaded many EU Parliamentarians to vote for the ban, legislation was developed without the involvement of Canadian Inuit, and the EU continues to develop implementation measures affecting Canadian Inuit without the fair and informed participation, let alone consent, of Inuit.

The events surrounding the EU seal products trade ban have contributed to a sharp drop in seal pelt prices in markets relied upon by Inuit and in turn a reduction in the ability of Inuit to provide for their families in the challenging economic climate of their homelands. The Government of Canada is currently challenging the EU seal products trade ban under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

Mary Simon, President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, said

"Inuit have been hunting seals and sustaining themselves for food, clothing, and trade for many generations. No objective and fair minded person can conclude that seals are under genuine conservation threat or that Inuit hunting activities are less humane than those practiced by hunting communities all over the world, including hunters in Europe. It is bitterly ironic that the EU, which seems entirely at home with promoting massive levels of agri-business and the raising and slaughtering of animals in highly industrialized conditions, seeks to preach some kind of selective elevated morality to Inuit. At best this is cultural bias, although it could be described in even harsher terms.