DOCSLIB.ORG

CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION V. NORTON 993 Cite As 248 F.3D 993 (10Th Cir

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION V. NORTON 993 Cite As 248 F.3D 993 (10Th Cir CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION v. NORTON 993 Cite as 248 F.3d 993 (10th Cir. 2001) not abuse its discretion in redacting this action because it was unable to join as note from Mr. Arney’s exhibit. necessary and indispensable parties other tribes participating in Nation’s funding III. Conclusion agreement for dividing federal appropria- We find that the district court did not tions. The United States District Court for err in submitting the Allen charge to the the Western District of Oklahoma, Wayne jury. We also find that the district court E. Alley, J., dismissed action. Nation ap- did not abuse its discretion in excluding pealed. The Court of Appeals, Holloway, the testimony of Mr. Arney’s expert wit- Circuit Judge, held that: (1) District Court ness. Finally, we find that the district did not abuse its discretion in determining court did not abuse its discretion in admit- that other tribes were necessary parties; ting evidence of Mr. Arney’s cattle inven- (2) District Court did not abuse its discre- tory and redacting a note attached to one tion in determining that other tribes were of Mr. Arney’s exhibits. Accordingly, we indispensable parties; and (3) Interior De- AFFIRM. partment was precluded from funding, though Indian Self-Determination and Ed- ucation Assistance Act, certain purportedly , ‘‘residual’’ functions of Nation. Affirmed. 1. Federal Courts O776, 817 CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION, Determinations of whether parties a federally recognized Indian must be joined are reviewed for an abuse Tribe, Plaintiff–Appellant, of discretion, while the underlying legal v. conclusions supporting such determina- tions are reviewed de novo. Fed.Rules Gale A. NORTON,* Secretary of the In- Civ.Proc.Rule 19(a), 28 U.S.C.A. terior, William Sinclair, Director of the Office of Self Governance, Defen- 2. Federal Courts O776 dants–Appellees. A legal ruling on when a party can No. 99–6077. assert its sovereign immunity and a dis- trict court’s determination of subject mat- United States Court of Appeals, ter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo. Tenth Circuit. 3. Federal Civil Procedure O1747 April 25, 2001. A district court must follow a three- step process for determining whether an Citizen Potawatomi Nation sued offi- action should be dismissed for failure to cials of Department of the Interior chal- join a purportedly indispensable party, in lenging Department’s methods for calcu- that it must determine whether the absent lating funding received by Nation under person is necessary, and if so, must then tribal self-governance compact. Officials determine whether joinder is feasible, and, responded that Nation could not maintain if it is not, must decide whether the absent * Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2), Gale A. retary of the Interior, as a defendant in this Norton is substituted for Bruce Babbitt, Sec- action. 994 248 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES person is indispensable, that is, whether in properly provided shared service area for equity and good conscience the action can it and Shawnee Tribe and therefore had continue in the absent person’s absence. improperly awarded Tribe excess funds, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 19(a, b), 28 inasmuch as Tribe’s claim of shared ser- U.S.C.A. vice area was not patently frivolous and Department could not adequately repre- 4. Federal Civil Procedure O211 sent Tribe’s interest given that its duty to District court did not abuse its discre- implement national Native American policy tion in determining that tribes that had was not necessarily same as Tribe’s inter- entered into agreement with Citizen Pota- est in receiving funds at issue. Fed.Rules watomi Nation setting forth formula for Civ.Proc.Rule 19(a), 28 U.S.C.A. dividing future federal appropriations were necessary parties with respect to Nation’s 8. Federal Civil Procedure O211 claim that Interior Department had incor- District court did not abuse its discre- rectly determined that formula was static, tion in determining that tribes that had as opposed to changing if there was entered into agreement with Citizen Pota- change in data upon which formula was watomi Nation setting forth formula for based, inasmuch as Nation’s claim could dividing future federal appropriations alter future funding for absent tribes, such were indispensable parties with respect to that absent tribes could claim interest in Nation’s action challenging Interior De- application of formula, and absent tribes partment’s methods for calculating funding had varied and potentially conflicting in- received by Nation under tribal self-gover- terests, such that Department could not nance compact; although such determina- adequately represent their interests. Fed. tion meant there was no way to challenge Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 19(a), 28 U.S.C.A. conduct in question, district court relied on strong policy favoring dismissal when 5. Federal Civil Procedure O201 court cannot join tribe because of sover- The underlying merits of the litigation eign immunity, and on its ruling that ab- are irrelevant to a determination whether sent tribes would suffer substantial preju- parties must be joined. Fed.Rules Civ. dice if action proceeded without them and Proc.Rule 19(a), 28 U.S.C.A. that there was no way to lessen that prej- 6. Federal Civil Procedure O201 udice. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 19(a), 28 U.S.C.A. The rule requiring that a party assert a claimed interest in order for joinder of 9. Federal Courts O762 that party to be necessary excludes only The Court of Appeals may affirm the those claimed interests that are patently district court on any basis the record sup- frivolous. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 19(a), ports, even one the district court did not 28 U.S.C.A. reach. 7. Federal Civil Procedure O211 10. Indians O7 District court did not abuse its discre- Interior Department was precluded tion in determining that tribes that had by moratorium clause in Congress’ 1999 entered into agreement with Citizen Pota- appropriations bill from funding, though watomi Nation setting forth formula for Indian Self-Determination and Education dividing future federal appropriations were Assistance Act, certain purportedly ‘‘resid- necessary parties with respect to Nation’s ual’’ functions of Citizen Potawatomi Na- claim that Interior Department had im- tion, inasmuch as Congress had specified CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION v. NORTON 995 Cite as 248 F.3d 993 (10th Cir. 2001) that provision of funds under Act was sub- ing funding the Citizen Potawatomi Nation ject to availability of appropriations. Indi- receives under its tribal self-governance an Self-Determination and Education As- compact. Subject matter jurisdiction was sistance Act, § 2 et seq., 25 U.S.C.A. § 450 asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 in that et seq.; Omnibus Consolidated and Emer- the action was brought by an Indian tribe gency Supplemental Appropriations Act, or band with a governing body duly recog- 1999, § 328, 16 U.S.C.A. § 460l–6a note. nized by the Secretary of the Interior and the matter in controversy arises under the 11. Federal Civil Procedure O1748, 1828 Constitution, laws or treaties of the United District court did not abuse its discre- States. The complaint also presented an tion in dismissing Indian tribe’s action for action in the nature of mandamus to com- failure to join necessary and indispensable pel an officer or employee of the United parties without allowing further discovery, States to perform a duty owed to the where tribe had not suggested possibility Plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1361. of development of evidence that would be Defendants moved to dismiss the action relevant to such inquiry, and district court on the ground that the Citizen Potawatomi assumed that facts alleged by tribes were are unable to join three ‘‘necessary’’ and true. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 19(a), 28 ‘‘indispensable’’ parties, tribal participants U.S.C.A. in the funding agreement. The district court agreed and granted the motion. This timely appeal ensued. We have ap- pellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Michael Minnis, Michael Minnis & Asso- ciates, PC., Oklahoma City, OK (David I McCullough with him on the briefs), for BACKGROUND Plaintiff–Appellant. Arvo Q. Mikkanen, Assistant United Under the Indian Self–Determination States Attorney, Oklahoma City, OK (Pat- and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. rick M. Ryan, United States Attorney, §§ 450 et seq., the United States is autho- with him on the brief), for Defendants– rized to enter into compacts with tribes. Appellees. Pursuant to that Act, tribes do not con- tract to take over specific programs; rath- Before TACHA, Chief Judge, er, tribes assume comprehensive responsi- HOLLOWAY and SEYMOUR, Circuit bility for the planning and administration Judges. of programs and services previously pro- vided by the United States. Essentially, HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge. the Act provides for tribal self-governance. Plaintiff/appellant Citizen Potawatomi Once the United States enters into a Nation (Citizen Potawatomi), a federally compact with a tribe, the parties ordinarily recognized Indian Tribe located in the negotiate an Annual Funding Agreement. Western District of Oklahoma, brought In 1988, however, five tribes within the this action which the Tribe termed as one Shawnee Agency of the Bureau of Indian for a ‘‘mandatory injunction in the nature Affairs negotiated a formula among them- of mandamus’’ against federal officials of selves for dividing future federal appropri- the United States Department of the Inte- ations. Those tribes included the Citizen rior challenging their methods for calculat- Potawatomi,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constitution of the Shawnee Tribe
    CONSTITUTION OF THE SHAWNEE TRIBE PREAMBLE We, the members of the Shawnee Tribe (formerly incorporated by agreement dated June 7, 1869, and approved on June 9, 1869, with the Cherokee Nation,) desire to retain our separate identity in order to preserve our Tribal culture and ensure tranquility among the Tribal members, whereby we may prosper with economic independence and social advancement. The Shawnee Tribe is an inseparable part of the United States. Therefore, we accept the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and the Shawnee Tribe will not attempt to implement any laws, rules, or regulations in conflict with the Constitution of the United States of America. ARTICLE I - NAME The name of this Tribe shall be Shawnee Tribe, recognizing however that we are the same people and Tribe who have been called, variously, the “Ohio Shawnee”; the “Cherokee Shawnee”; the “Shawnee Cherokee”; the “United Tribe of Shawnee”; and the “Loyal Shawnee.” ARTICLE II—TERRITORY AND JURISDICTION The sovereign authority and jurisdiction of the Shawnee Tribe shall extend to all the territory now or ever known as SHAWNEE LANDS, which includes lands within the boundaries of the State of Oklahoma not within the boundaries of the Cherokee Nation; or within the Cherokee Nation if approved by the Cherokee Nation; the original Shawnee Reservation within the boundaries of the Kansas Territory, now known as the State of Kansas; all Indian lands beneficially owned by the current and future members of the Shawnee Tribe; all lands which may be acquired by the Shawnee Tribe for its land base; and all Indian Country of the Shawnee Tribe and its members as now or hereafter defined by federal law.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal and House District Boundaries
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribal Boundaries and Oklahoma House Boundaries ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 22 ! 18 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 13 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 20 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cimarron ! ! ! ! 14 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11 ! ! Texas ! ! Harper ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! n ! ! Beaver ! ! ! ! Ottawa ! ! ! ! Kay 9 o ! Woods ! ! ! ! Grant t ! 61 ! ! ! ! ! Nowata ! ! ! ! ! 37 ! ! ! g ! ! ! ! 7 ! 2 ! ! ! ! Alfalfa ! n ! ! ! ! ! 10 ! ! 27 i ! ! ! ! ! Craig ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! h ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 26 s ! ! Osage 25 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! a ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 21 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 58 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 38 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes by House District ! 11 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 Absentee Shawnee* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Woodward ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 36 ! Apache* ! ! ! 40 ! 17 ! ! ! 5 8 ! ! ! Rogers ! ! ! ! ! Garfield ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 40 ! ! ! ! ! 3 Noble ! ! ! Caddo* ! ! Major ! ! Delaware ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! Mayes ! ! Pawnee ! ! ! 19 ! ! 2 41 ! ! ! ! ! 9 ! 4 ! 74 ! ! ! Cherokee ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ellis ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 41 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 72 ! ! ! ! ! 35 4 8 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5 3 42 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 77
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Lands of Federally Recognized Tribes of the United States
    132°W 131°W 130°W 129°W 128°W 127°W 126°W 125°W 124°W 123°W 122°W 121°W 120°W 119°W 118°W 117°W 116°W 115°W 114°W 113°W 112°W 111°W 110°W 109°W 108°W 107°W 106°W 105°W 104°W 103°W 102°W 101°W 100°W 99°W 98°W 97°W 96°W 95°W 94°W 93°W 92°W 91°W 90°W 89°W 88°W 87°W 86°W 85°W 84°W 83°W 82°W 81°W 80°W 79°W 78°W 77°W 76°W 75°W 74°W 73°W 72°W 71°W 70°W 69°W 68°W 67°W 66°W 65°W 64°W 63°W 48°N 46°N 47°N Neah Bay 4 35 14 45°N Everett 46°N Taholah CANADA Seattle Nespelem 40 Aberdeen 44°N Wellpinit Browning Spokane 45°N Harlem Belcourt WAS HIN Box Wagner E GTO Plummer Elder IN N MA 10 Pablo E SUPER Wapato IO Poplar K R Toppenish A 43°N New L Town Fort Totten Red Lake NT 44°N O Lapwai RM Portland VE Sault MO Sainte Marie NTANA Cass Lake Siletz Pendleton 42°N K NH NORTH DAKOTA Ashland YOR EW 43°N Warm N Springs LA KE No H r Fort U t Yates Boston hw Billings R TS e Crow ET 41°N s Agency O S t HU Worcester O R N AC RE eg Lame Deer OTA NTARIO SS GON io MINNES E O MA 42°N n Sisseton K A Providence 23 Aberdeen L N I 39 Rochester R A Springfield Minneapolis 51 G Saint Paul T SIN I C WISCON Eagle H 40°N IDA Butte Buffalo Boise HO C I 6 41°N R M o E cky M SOUTH DAKOTA ou K AN ntai ICHIG n R A M egion Lower Brule Fort Thompson L E n Grand Rapids I io New York g 39°N e Milwaukee R Fort Hall R west 24 E d Detroit Mi E 40°N Fort Washakie K WYOMING LA Rosebud Pine Ridge Cleveland IA Redding Wagner AN Toledo LV 32 NSY PEN Philadelphia 38°N Chicago NJ A 39°N IOW Winnebago Pittsburgh Fort Wayne Elko 25 Great Plains Region Baltimore Des Moines MD E NEBRASKA OHIO D
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 155/Tuesday, August 11, 2020
    48556 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 11, 2020 / Notices CO 80205, telephone (303) 370–6056, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Affairs; performed a skeletal and email [email protected], by here given in accordance with the dentition analysis on October 25, 1995. September 10, 2020. After that date, if Native American Graves Protection and Although the exact date or pre-contact no additional requestors have come Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. period associated with this site is forward, transfer of control of the 3003, of the completion of an inventory unknown, as no reliable temporal human remains and associated funerary of human remains under the control of indictors were recovered or recorded, objects to The Tribes may proceed. the Bruce Museum, Greenwich, CT. The the Shorakapock site is well The Denver Museum of Nature & human remains were removed from the documented in the New York Science and the U.S. Department of Shorakapock Site in Inwood Hill Park, archeological and historical literature. Agriculture, Forest Service, Gila New York County, NY. Records from 17th and 18th century National Forest are responsible for This notice is published as part of the documents indicate at least five notifying The Tribes that this notice has National Park Service’s administrative settlements may been located within or been published. responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 near the Inwood Hill Park vicinity. According to The Cultural Landscape Dated: July 7, 2020. U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Foundation, the site was inhabited by Melanie O’Brien, the Lenape tribe through the Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Near the Edge: Language Revival from the Brink of Extinction
    NEAR THE EDGE: LANGUAGE REVIVAL FROM THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION James Rementer, Language Director The Delaware Tribe, Bartlesville, Oklahoma and Bruce L. Pearson, University of South Carolina 1. Introduction. The authors have spent close to forty years, individually and often collaboratively, working on three Native American languages. Our experiences are fairly typical of people who become involved in Indian languages, whether they are born into a tribal community or come as outsiders. The three languages are Delaware and Shawnee, both Algonquian, and Wyandotte, and Iroquoian language. Although the focus of this conference is on Algonquian languages, the threat of extinction is common to all native languages regardless of family identity. These three languages themselves represent different stages common to threatened languages and typical responses within threatened language communities. The last speaker of Wyandotte died some 50 years ago. Delaware now has but one living native speaker, an elderly man whose health no longer permits him to actively pass on the language. The language is preserved by a few adults who have acquired limited fluency in recent years. Only Shawnee has native speakers still living although all are above age fifty. The attitudes toward language revival and the programs adopted to preserve the language differ in each community. These differences are based largely on the perceived degree of endangerment and community assumptions about what can be done to preserve the language and, more importantly, what should be done. We will describe the situation in these three communities starting with the one in which we have had the longest and most extensive involvement and proceeding to those in which we have had a lesser degree of involvement.
    [Show full text]
  • Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians (Oklahoma Social Studies Standards, OSDE)
    OKLAHOMA INDIAN TRIBE EDUCATION GUIDE Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians (Oklahoma Social Studies Standards, OSDE) Tribe: Absentee Shawnee (ab-SEN-tee shaw-NEE) Tribe of Indians Tribal website(s): http://www.astribe.com/ast ribe 1. Migration/movement/forced removal Oklahoma History C3 Standard 2.3 “Integrate visual and textual evidence to explain the reasons for and trace the migrations of Native American peoples including the Five Tribes into present-day Oklahoma, the Indian Removal Act of 1830, and tribal resistance to the forced relocations.” Oklahoma History C3 Standard 2.7 “Compare and contrast multiple points of view to evaluate the impact of the Dawes Act which resulted in the loss of tribal communal lands and the redistribution of lands by various means including land runs as typified by the Unassigned Lands and the Cherokee Outlet, lotteries, and tribal allotments.” ● Original Homeland - Northeastern United States, in the areas now known as as the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania ● Forced Removal: Treaties in the late 1700s and 1800s reveal the Shawnee had a large population. In 1793, some of the Shawnee Tribe's ancestors received a Spanish land grant at Cape Girardeau, Missouri. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase from France, brought this area under American control. In 1825, Congress ratified a treaty with the Shawnees living at Cape Girardeau, Missouri, due to encroaching colonial settlement. Shawnees ceding their Missouri lands for a 1.6 million-acre reservation in eastern Kansas. However, several years before this treaty was introduced, a group of Shawnees left Missouri to begin a journey south that led them into the territory of what is now the state of Texas, under the control of Spain.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:06-Cv-00830-GK Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 20
    Case 1:06-cv-00830-GK Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ________________________________________________ ) CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION, ) a federally recognized Indian Tribe, ) 1601 S. Gordon Cooper Drive ) Shawnee, Oklahoma 74801 ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) LYNN SCARLETT, Acting Secretary of the Interior; ) KENNETH REINFELD, Acting Director of the ) Office of Self-Governance, ) Bureau of Indian Affairs ) Department of the Interior ) 1849 C Street, N.W. ) Washington, D.C. 20240 ) ) STEVEN K. LINSCHEID, ) Chief Administrative Judge ) Interior Board of Indian Appeals ) 801 North Quincy Street, Suit 300 ) Arlington, Virginia 22203 ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________________) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Citizen Potawatomi Nation (“CPN”), by its undersigned attorneys, hereby files this Complaint for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment against the Defendants and states as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff: CPN is a federally recognized Indian Tribe located in the State of Oklahoma who has entered into a Compact of Self-Governance and Annual Funding 1 Case 1:06-cv-00830-GK Document 1 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 2 of 20 Agreements with the United States Department of Interior pursuant to the Tribal Self- Governance provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDA”), 25 U.S.C. § 458aa-458hh. 2. Defendants: The Defendants are federal officials who, among other things, administer the Department of Interior’s implementation of the ISDA and resolve disputes concerning the Department’s implementation of the ISDA: a. Lynn Scarlett (hereafter “Secretary”) is the Acting Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Under federal law, the Secretary negotiates and enters into self-governance agreements and compacts with Indian tribes under the ISDA.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Official Newsletter of the Inter-Tribal Environmental Council”
    Volume 24 Issue #3 June 2020 “The Official Newsletter of the Inter-Tribal Environmental Council” ITEC The Green Thumbs of MCN MEMBER TRIBES Absentee-Shawnee Tribe Courtesy of: Kristy Lawson, Muscogee Creek Nation Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Alabama-Quassarte Tribe In early 2020, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (MCN) Apache Tribe Natural Resource Conservation District was awarded Caddo Nation the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Cherokee Nation Urban Conservation Project grant. Through this, the Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribes Conservation District developed a community garden Citizen Potawatomi Nation plan for the Elderly Nutrition/Housing in Okmulgee. Comanche Nation With help from MCN’s Office of Environmental Ser- Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana vices, Reintegration Center, and the Daffodil Garden Delaware Nation Club, this project has helped to improve elderly citizens’ Delaware Tribe access to healthy, affordable food, while allowing elders Eastern Shawnee Tribe to pass down traditional ecological knowledge to the Fort Sill Apache youth through gardening. Iowa Tribe Jicarilla Apache Nation In February, the Conservation District and Environmen- Kaw Nation tal Services utilized the greenhouse located at the Rein- Kialegee Tribal Town tegration Center in Henryetta to establish approximately Kickapoo Tribe Kiowa Tribe 100 flats of plants intended for the community garden. Miami Tribe While some of the seeds were bought, most were do- Modoc Tribe nated by the Kaleo Foundation or collected from pollina- Muscogee (Creek) Nation tor workshops at the Euchee Butterfly Farm in Bixby. Osage Nation MCN Principal Chief David W. Hill and Second Chief Otoe-Missouria Tribe Del Beaver visited the greenhouse during the seed Ottawa Tribe planting – impressed with the variety of plants being Pawnee Nation grown for the project.
    [Show full text]
  • TRIBE OR TRIBAL ORGANIZATION INITIAL CR RELEASE Alabama Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe $7,037 Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians
    2018 Initial CR Release of LIHEAP Block Grant Funds to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations under P.L. 115-56 INITIAL CR TRIBE OR TRIBAL ORGANIZATION RELEASE Alabama Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe $7,037 Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians $128,077 Poarch Band of Creek Indians (also in Florida) $82,073 United Cherokee Ani-Yun Wiya Nation $33,442 Alaska Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association $165,633 Aniak Traditional Council $149,594 Assn. of Village Council Presidents $2,392,465 Bristol Bay Native Association $900,047 Chuathbaluk Traditional Council $18,751 Cook Inlet $259,388 Kenaitze Indian Tribe $117,991 Orutsararmuit Native Council $218,761 Seldovia Village $10,938 Sitka Tribe of Alaska $65,595 Tanana Chiefs Conference $1,493,031 Tlingit & Haida Central Council $700,036 Yakutat Tlingit Tribe $31,252 Arizona Cocopah Tribe $7,223 Colorado River Indian Tribes (also in California) $23,645 Gila River Pima-Maricopa Community $72,889 Navajo Nation (also in New Mexico and Utah) $1,391,576 Pascua Yaqui Tribe $27,844 Quechan Tribe (also in California) $17,796 Salt River Pima Maricopa Ind. Cmty. $26,894 San Carlos Apache Tribe $44,348 White Mountain Apache Tribe $63,355 California Berry Creek Rancheria $5,620 Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians $1,513 Bishop Paiute $21,182 Coyote Valley Pomo Band $4,669 Enterprise Rancheria $2,162 Hoopa Valley Tribe $38,734 Hopland Band $5,880 Karuk Tribe $28,100 2018 Initial CR Release of LIHEAP Block Grant Funds to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations under P.L. 115-56 INITIAL CR TRIBE OR TRIBAL ORGANIZATION RELEASE Mooretown Rancheria $16,038 N.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERIOR BOARD of INDIAN APPEALS Citizen Band Potawatomi
    INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Anadarko Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs 28 IBIA 169 (09/12/1995) Judicial review of this decision: Reversed, Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Collier, No. CIV-92-2161-R (W.D. Okla. May 22, 1996) Affirmed, 142 F.3d 1325 (10th Cir. 1998) Certiorari denied, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 525 U.S. 947 (1998) Related earlier judicial case: Dismissed for failure to join indispensable party, Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Collier, No. CIV-92-2161-R (W.D. Okla. Feb. 2, 1993) Reversed and remanded, 17 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 1994) Remanded to exhaust administrative remedies, No. CIV-92-2161-R (Aug. 5, 1994) Related Board case: 42 IBIA 160 United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS 4015 WILSON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON, VA 22203 CITIZEN BAND POTAWATOMI INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA v. ANADARKO AREA DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IBIA 95-45-A Decided September 12, 1995 Appeal from a decision concerning the acquisition of land in trust for the Absentee- Shawnee Tribe within the former Potawatomi Reservation in Oklahoma. Affirmed. 1. Board of Indian Appeals: Jurisdiction--Indians: Lands: Trust Acquisitions--Indians: Reservations: Definition The Bureau of Indian Affairs' definition of a "former reservation" under 25 CFR 151.2(f), for purposes of acquisition of land in trust for Indians, is subject to de novo review by the Board of Indian Appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Jurisdictions in Oklahoma
    TRIBAL JURISDICTIONS IN OKLAHOMA IKE 385 69 P 59 N 325 R 23 U 83 283 183 CHILOCCO35 INDIAN 169 T 8 81 18 44 54 281 SCHOOL LANDS 75 56 10 NOWATA 136 64 132 95 10 59 10C TEXAS 64 11 KAW WOODS GRANT 177 64 KAY ALFALFA 11A OSAGE 64 58 99 DELAWARE TRIBE 25 OTTAWA 325 412 94 11 11 11 60 64 OF INDIANS 10 64 BEAVER CIMARRON HARPER 11 CRAIG 125 74 2 171 50 77 RS 270 60 GE 3 149 RO L 38 IL 14 385 60 W 69 60 28 60 95 TONKAWA N 136 64 64 59 54 3 183 123 O 412 270 34 25 8 T 287 54 PONCA 83 OSAGE G 82 45 N 59 I 66 23 CHEROKEE 283 64 156 11 H 45 15 177 S 46 169 A ROGERS 270 75 28 W 45 28 34C 50B 15 15 20 20 15 OTOE - E K NOBLE 77 66 I MISSOURIA P MAYES 15 88 N 60 R WOODWARD 60 64 U 20 281 CIMARRON 20 44 T 69 59 15 50 412 PAWNEE 74 99 58 412 20 34 MAJOR DELAWARE 116 64 64 S 164 R 18 E 69A G 88 TURNPIKE PAWNEE O 412A TURNPIKE 266 R 412B 8 L CHEROKEE GARFIELD 412 L 412 183 60 I 412A 132 81 W 58 35 412 E 82 108 244 K I 60 P 60 132 N 51A R 51 51 U 51 51 T ELLIS 97 44 10 281 45 51 TULSA M ADAIR 99 48 U 8 KINGFISHER 74D 177 18 EK SK RE O Inset of Northeast Corner PAYNE C GE 82 77 CREEK E 283 E IK 62 81 33 P CHEROKEE N WAGONER E 33 R 64 LOGAN U 51 59 K 34 58 T I TU P 74C R R 51 DEWEY E 66 NP 183 N IK 80 UNITED KEETOOWAH N 8A R 75 E U 69 51 69A R IOWA 16 T 72 16 BAND OF CHEROKEES U 51B T 105 105 3 QUAPAW 47 33 MUSCOGEE (CREEK) 104 100 33 62 82 MIAMI 69 47 66 44 270 74F 44 75A 30 177 35 M 47 81 74 16 64 16 U E NPIK 165 S TUR 66 K ROGER CUSTER O 100 44 G 10 33 52 E MILLS BLAINE SAC AND FOX E 33 283 54 4 66 R RNE MUSKOGEE 47 TU 56 T 10A CHEYENNE - ARAPAHO TURNPIKE
    [Show full text]
  • Wyandot, Shawnee, and African American Resistance to Slavery in Ohio and Kansas
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Dissertations, Theses, & Student Research, Department of History History, Department of 8-2019 Wyandot, Shawnee, and African American Resistance to Slavery in Ohio and Kansas Diane Miller University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/historydiss Part of the Public History Commons, and the Social History Commons Miller, Diane, "Wyandot, Shawnee, and African American Resistance to Slavery in Ohio and Kansas" (2019). Dissertations, Theses, & Student Research, Department of History. 94. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/historydiss/94 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, & Student Research, Department of History by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. WYANDOT, SHAWNEE, AND AFRICAN AMERICAN RESISTANCE TO SLAVERY IN OHIO AND KANSAS by Diane Miller A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Major: History Under the Supervision of Professor William G. Thomas III Lincoln, Nebraska August, 2019 WYANDOT, SHAWNEE, AND AFRICAN AMERICAN RESISTANCE TO SLAVERY IN OHIO AND KANSAS Diane Miller, Ph.D. University of Nebraska, 2019 Advisor: William G. Thomas III From the colonial period, enslaved Africans escaped bondage. Colonial records and treaties reveal that they often sought refuge with Indian tribes. This resistance to slavery through escape and flight constituted the Underground Railroad. As European colonies developed into the United States, alliances of subaltern groups posed a threat.
    [Show full text]