National Indian Law Library

NILL No.

010066/1999 dl c2

TWo Cabinet Officers Cited for Contempt by Federal Judge

"Calling this a trust fund is perhaps the most ironic use of the word trust in history. Time and time again In dians have trusted in the fe deral government and at each and every stage they have been betrayed. This is just a modem-day manifestation of the betrayal. " Ke ith Ha rper, NAR F Attorney

"The court is deeply disappointed that any liti­ standards that were then a model for the rest of gant would fail to obey orders for production of the legal profession, and the Justice Department documents, and then conceal and cover-up that always took the position that its job was not to disobedience with outright false statements that win an individual case at all costs, but to see that the court then relied upon. But when that liti­ justice was done. Justice has not been done to gant is the federal government, the misconduct these Indian beneficiaries. Moreover, justice is even more troubling. The institutions of our delayed is justice denied. The court cannot tol­ federal government cannot continue to exist if erate more empty promises to these Indian plain­ they cannot be trusted. The court here conduct­ tiffs . The time has come for action, and the court ed monthly status conferences where plaintiffs will make full use of its powers to ensure that this complained that the government was not pro­ case gets back on track." ducing the required documents. Because of the court's great respect for the Justice Department, So concluded United States District Judge the court repeatedly accepted the government's Royce C. Lamberth on February 22, 1999 as the false statements as true, and brushed aside the Court found by clear and convincing evidence plaintiffs' complaints. This that Bruce Babbitt, two-week contempt trial Secretary of the Interior; has certainly proved that Robert Rubin, Secretary of the court's trust in the Two Cabinet Officers Cited the Treasury; and Kevin Justice Department was for Contempt by Gover, Assistant Secretary, misplaced. The federal Federal Judge ...... page 1 Department of the Interior government here did not were in civil contempt of just stub its toe. It abused CASE UPDATES the United States District the rights of the plaintiffs Preliminary Injunction is Court for the District of to obtain these trust docu­ Granted on Alaska's English Columbia for their failure Only Initiative ...... page 5 ments, and it engaged in a to produce court-ordered shocking pattern of decep­ records in the largest law­ U.S. Supreme Court Rules tion of the court. I have Against Arizona Tribes ...... page 7 suit ever brought by never seen more egregious American Indians against misconduct by the federal NARF Attorney ...... page 8 the federal government. government. In my own experience, government NARF Resources and The Native American lawyers always strived to Publications ...... page 9 Rights Fund (NARF) and set the example by follow­ private counsel had fi led ing the highest ethical the class action lawsuit �

VOLUME 24, NO. 1 WINTER/SPRING 1999 Q on June 10, 1996, charging that the Bureau of most institutions provide when managing trust Z Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Departments of funds. For example, still to this day, there is no if Interior and Treasury breached their fiduciary comprehensive accounts receivables system, so Cl) duties to prudently manage the trust funds for the trustee - the federal government - does !;: 500,000 Individual Indian Money (IIM) account not know when money is owed to their trust ben­ m holders, and has refused to fixan accounting sys­ eficiaries - the individual Indian account hold­ ;: tern that the government itself admits is funda­ ers. The former Special Trustee for American mentally flawed and wholly incapable of safely Indians, Paul Homan, has gone so far as to say Z C and soundly managing these trust funds. The that the current trust management system is the S: money in these IIM accounts, although worst that he has ever seen in his twenty years as .:::C: processed by Interior and deposited in the U.S. a banker and bank auditor. Moreover, the prob­ E Treasury, are not government funds or appropri­ lems are so severe, that the head of the Office of C ated monies; rather, most of these funds belong Trust Funds Management testified in this case M.11 to the individual Indians who have earned these that it was impossible to verify the accuracy of =: monies from the leasing and sales of the natural even a single account balance. � resources on their allotted land. The monies are z proceeds from oil and gas production, grazing The government claims that each year approx­ and farming leases, coal production and timber imately $300 million is distributed to Indian sales. Under federal law, the United States act's beneficiaries through the IIM trust fund system as trustee and manages these lands and their and that the aggregate balance of the IIM Trust at underlying resources. Other funds are from any given time is approximately $500 million. Indian claims judgments that have been distrib­ But as admitted by government officials, these uted to individual Indians but are managed for numbers have never been verified. Plaintiffs them by the United States as trustee. believe that the accounting they seek through this litigation will demonstrate that the trust However, government reports show that since fund aggregate balance is woefully understated. the beginning of the federal government's man­ This suit is intended to require that the govern­ agement of individual Indian lands after enact­ ment perform such an accounting and then ment of the General Allotment Act in 1887, the restate the balances of the IIM trust accounts in government has consistently and continually conformity with failed to live up to its fiduciary responsibilities. Over the last twenty-five years, report after report from the government's own General Accounting Office, as well as Congress and the Office of Special Trustee, have documented the many longstanding infirmities of the IIM trust management system. These reports indicate, among other things, that much of the docu­ mentation and transaction records relating to the IIM Trust have been lost and destroyed, often times intentionally. In addition, these trust funds are managed without the basic controls

PAGE 2 NARF LEGAL REVIEW the accounting. PriceWaterhouseCoopers ruling meant (PwC), an accounting firm hired by the plaintiffs that individual to perform the accounting of the IIM Trust Indian trust Funds, has suggested, as a ballpark estimate, beneficiaries that the United States could owe individual will be accord­ Indians upwards of $10 billion. ed equal treat­ ment under the In order to aid PwC in performing the most law and not accurate accounting possible, the plaintiffs, in permit their November 1996, requested that defendants pro­ trustee, the

duce all IIM trust records and documents per­ United · States, · :a taining to the fivenamed plaintiffs and their pre­ to treat them i$ decessors in interest. The government agreed to under some diluted standard of care. Moreover, :::C produce these documents, and, accordingly, on the ruling rejected the governments attempts to U.: November 27, 1996, Judge Lamberth entered a relegate these trust claims to the ""11"11 stipulated order to have these critical trust docu­ "traditional"claims court, but rather would = ments produced. require enforcementin the federal district court, i§ which has much broader jurisdiction to grant In February 1997, the government reported to appropriate relief. In short, Judge Lamberth the Court that it would produce all documents ruled that the district court had jurisdiction to forthe fivenamed plaintiffs by March 3, 1997. It hear this case, that the case will be decided under became clear to plaintiffs over the next several the common law of trusts, and that the Statute of months that despite the governments' promises, Limitations does not bar claims before 1984, as not all documents had been produced. On May 5, the government had argued. 1998, at plaintiffs request, the Court set a firm deadline on the production of the documents for A mere couple of weeks after this landmark the five named plaintiffs and their predecessors decision, on November 24, 1998, Judge in interest, ordering the Departments of Interior Lamberth raised the issue of the documents for and Treasury to turn over all such documents by the five named plaintiffs during a scheduling June 30; 1998. However, the government still hearing. The government reported once again did not produce the documents that they had that not all documents for the five named plain­ promised 15 months earlier. tiffs had been produced and the Court, therefore, requested plaintiffs to file, by December 9, 1998, "The government has been ducking their trust a motion for the defendants to show cause why fund responsibility fo r de cades. Itgoes to show the defendants should not be held in contempt how egregious their mismanagement has been forfailure to comply with the Court's November that they couldn 't even find records fo r fivepeo­ 27, 1996 Order. In accordance with the Court's ple. " Jo hn Echohawk, NARFEx ecutive Director instructions, plaintiffs filed the motion to show cause, which the Court granted and scheduled In that same May 5 order, the Court also the contempt trial to commence on January 11, required the government to file any dispositive 1999, against the Secretary of the Interior, the motions by June 30, 1998. The government did Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian so, filing separate motions to dismiss the IIM Affairs, and the Secretary of the Treasury. account holders' claims to "fix the system" and perform an accounting. But on November 5, The contempt trial lasted two weeks. During 1998, Judge Lamberth rejected the government's that time, the Court called two witnesses and the motions to dismiss this case. In so doing, Judge government called sixteen. Because all the gov­ Lamberth issued a landmark ruling which essen­ ernment's own witnesses proved that defendants tially held that the federal government must had acted contemptuously , plaintiffs did not call adhere to the same standard as any other trustee a single witness. The testimony during the con­ - specifically, the common law of trusts. This tempt trial demonstrated one thing very clearly, �

NARF LEGAL REVIEW PAGE 3 = as Judge Lamberth would state in his decision: z "The way in which the defendants have handled = ..... this litigation up to the commencement of the en contempt trial is nothing short of a travesty." ...... i; Unfortunately, the Department of Interior attempted to scapegoat the Officeof Special Trustee ;: (OST) -the government office most responsible :i! forimplementing system improvements that have :! occurred - for this "travesty." On January 5, a: 1999, just days before the contempt trial began, E Secretary of the Interior Babbitt decided to reorga­ C: nize OST by way of Secretarial Order 3208, and l.M remove the key OST official ------, :!!!: responsible for producing =:;: documents. Secretary z Babbitt's Order gutted the Special Trustees' power and authority that Congress had conferred on his Office through the American Indian Trust Management Reform Act of 1994. Moreover, the Secretary took this action without ever consulting with the Special Trustee, Congress or Tribes prior to the reorga­ nization. In fact, the Special Trustee had no knowledge of Secretarial Order 3208 until Department of Justice lawyers filed the Order with the Court on January 6 as part of the government's defense in the contempt trial.

In response to Secretarial protect their fundamental property rights and Order 3208, the Special Trustee Paul Homan, interests. Fortunately, Congress has responded who had been appointed by President Clinton by beginning oversight hearings to investigate and confirmed by the Senate, resigned his post the Secretary's handling of this issue and the in protest. The departure of Mr. Homan, who is continuing problem of trust fund management a former Comptroller of the Currency and an by the Department of the Interior. accomplished banker with an impeccable track­ record and nation-wide reputation for revitaliz­ The Court has ordered the first phase of the ing failing financial institutions, has left the trial on fixing the system for June 10, 1999, Department without any individual with the exactly three years from the original filing of experience and background to straighten out this case. 0 the trust fund management disaster. Indeed, as a result of the Special Trustee's resignation, the 500,000 current individual Indian trust benefi­ ciaries are in fact and law without a trustee to

PAGE 4 NARF LEGAL REVIEW CASE UPDATES z

-� Preliminary Injunction is Granted on Alaska's English Only Initiative < m On March 3, 1999, Alaska State Superior Court dissolve their city governments. Whichever way ::c=s Judge Fred Torrisi granted a preliminary injunc­ a village chooses to go, the choice as to how a vil- ii tion that enjoined the State of Alaska from the lage will govern itself is solely one for that village GI operation and enforcement of Alaska's Official to make, and neither the State of Alaska nor its n English Initiative, which was passed by state vot­ voters have any right to demand that local gov- ::c=s ers in November 1998. ernments in the villages only do business in a Z language that may be difficult, if not impossible, :! The Native American Rights Fund requested a for many people in these villages to understand." m temporary restraining order and preliminary = injunction in the lawsuit Alakayak v. State. Mr. Johnson also noted that even in those vil­ Ul NARF filed the Alakayak case on February 16th, lages that have dissolved their city governments, """ in the state superior court in Anchorage, on education continues to be provided through i behalf of twenty-seven individual plaintiffs who state school districts, and that "the ability of a = are seeking an order declaring that English-only village to make important community decisions Ballot Measure Six is unconstitutional. on the education of their children necessarily requires the freedom to discuss these decisions Heather Kendall-Miller, a staffattorney in the in the first language of the community." Anchorage office of NARF, explained that NARF brought this lawsuit "to protect the rights of Ms. Kendall-Miller explained that a temporary Alaska Native villages to freely choose, shape and restraining order and preliminary injunction had control the forms of community self-governance become necessary because a number of the that exist in their local communities." Because Alakayak plaintiffs had meetings of their city Alaska Native villages exercise their powers of governments or school functions scheduled for community self-governance through numerous after March 4th, the date the law would have structures,. both tribal and state, many of the gone into effect. She added that the potential for most basic powers of community self-gover­ state enforcement of the English-only law nance in Native villages are exercised through against these plaintiffs after that date "threat- institutions established under state law, such as ened the most basic sover- ,. city governments, school districts, and the vari­ eign rights of ous citizen advisory boards that provide local these communi­ input on state agency decisions. As Ms. Kendall­ ties to meaning­ Miller explained, "Alaska Native villages have a ful self-govern­ fundamental community right to govern them­ ment." selves through whatever structures they may choose, which necessarily includes the right to do so in the Native languages of their communi­ ties, the only languages many of their citizens can understand."

"A number of Alaska Native villages have decid­ ed that state law structures of community self­ Eighteen of the twenty­ governance do not work for them, and that they seven plaintiffs in the should dissolve their city governments and gov­ Alakayak case come from the ern themselves solely through tribal structures Yup'ik villages of Quinhagak, instead," Eric Johnson, a NAPIL Equal Justice Manokotak, Kasigluk, Fellow with the Anchorage NARF office Chefornak and Atmautluak, explained: "Other villages have decided not to five villages where the Yup'ik �

NARF LEGAL REVIEW PAGE 5 = language is widely used in virtually all aspects of they do, they will be law breakers and potentially Z community self-governance. Other plaintiffs subject to suit. Moreover, those city officials who if include five Alaska Natives residing in the do not speak English as a first language (and en regional centers of Barrow and Bethel. Plaintiffs there are many in rural Alaska), will effectively Ila- include local governmental officials, educators, be excluded from participating in local govern­ G and members of the public from villages that will ment. The breadth of this measure makes it all be impacted by this law. the more unconstitutional, since it violates both ;: free speech and the constitutional right to par­ z ic:c The Alakayak lawsuit claims that Alaska's ticipate in and have access to government. :! English-only law is unconstitutional because it ffi violates constitutional rights to free speech, Because the measure extends to all state equal protection, and due process. NARF attor­ employees, it would prohibit an Inupiat school & iel neys are joined by attorneys from the Alaska Civil teacher and a monolingual Inupiat-speaking par­ LU Liberties Union and the North Slope Borough ent fromspeaking in Inupiat about a child's edu­ !!: Law Department. cation. It would also preclude a discussion in a =: language other than English between public z The "English Only" initiative was written in employees and citizens seeking unemployment very broad terms, and would have a major impact or worker's compensation benefits, or access to upon Alaska Natives, if it were to go into effect. fair housing or public assistance, or information Unlike most other official English measures that with respect to child support, child welfare, fos­ are primarily symbolic, this measure prohibits ter care placement, Indian Child Welfare Act the use of any language except English in virtu­ matters, or to redress violations of those rights. ally all governmental functions and actions. The In short, the measure would have a chilling measure applies to "the legislative and executive effect on all Native languages, which is why branches of the State of Alaska and all political NARF has filed this lawsuit, and secured this subdivisions, including all departments, agen­ preliminary injunction to keep the law from cies, divisions and instrumentalities of the State, taking effect. the University of Alaska, all public authorities and corporations, all local governments and Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc. and departments, agencies, divisions, and instru­ U.S. English, Inc. have moved to intervene as mentalities of local governments, and all govern­ parties defendant. The Alakayak plaintiffs filed a ment officers and employees." motion opposing intervention on March 19, 1999, on the basis that proposed intervenors' The measure also contains a private cause of interests are adequately represented by the State action that allows any person to bring suit and that their views can be effectively presented against a government entity to enforce the pro­ to the Court as amid curiae. visions of the act. Thus, a non-Native resident of Anchorage would be able to bring an On March 8, 1999, the Court entered an order set­ enforcement action to require a Yupik-speak­ ting forth a briefing schedule on the merits. ing community in Southwest Alaska, to force it Plaintiffs will file their to conduct its city business in English, and motion for summary English only. judgment on May 28th and the State has The impact of this statute would have been until July 9, 1999 direct and immediate, had it gone into effect on to file its opposi­ March 4th. For example, of the 226 Native vil­ tion. Oral argu­ lages in Alaska, over 100 have formed municipal ment on the governments. It is very common for city officials motions is set to conduct business in Yupik, Inupiat, or for September Athabaskan languages. If this initiative becomes 1, 1999, in law, they will no longer be able to do so. And, if Dillingham, Alaska.

6 z: U.S. Supreme Coun Rules Against Arizona Tribes ==...... "This Ruling leaves the tribes in the same inequitable situation ofgenerati ng revenue fo r the states ;;!i and getting no services in return." Tracy lab in, NA RF Attorney J= == On March 2, 1999, Justice Clarence Thomas, lated in its earli- m ...... :a writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, held in er case, Un ited n Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blaze States v. New == z: Construction Co. that Arizona could tax a pri­ Mexico, 455 :a U.S. 720 (1982), ...... vate company's proceeds from contracts with = the Federal government even where those con­ which autho- = ...... tracts were exclusively for the building of roads rized state taxa­ en on Indian reservations. The decision laid to rest tion of federal """ = a conflict in lower court law and prescribed a contractors, z: bright-line rule in favor of state taxation regard­ and the Court � less of the location of the contract activity or the was unwilling to carve out an exception to that impact of the tax on Tribes. firm rule even where the contract activity took place entirely within Indian reservations. The contractor in this case was Blaze Construction Co. (Blaze), a wholly Indian­ In its brief amicus curiae, NARF supported owned company incorporated under the laws of Blaze's tax exemption, arguing that the factthat the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana. Blaze contract­ the activity took place in Indian country called ed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to construct for the Court to examine the impact of the tax and repair reservation roads forsix Indian tribes on tribes and tribal sovereignty to determine the within Arizona. The work was all performed authority of states to tax within Indian country. within reservation boundaries and the roads As Blaze pointed out, one of the greatest impacts provided access to Indian schools, homes, and the tax will have is that it will reduce the num­ local government centers. Arizona imposed a tax ber of roads that will be built, because, instead of on this activity on the theory that a Supreme going toward road-building, millions of dollars Court case had already established the rights of will instead be going to fill state coffers. Indeed, states to tax the activities of federal contractors. as indicated by a March 3rd Arizona Republic The United States agreed with the State and filed newspaper article, "the decision comes at a time a brief amicus curiae in support of state taxing when the federal government is preparing to authority in this case. In the end, the Supreme award $1.6 billion in contracts for highway work Court agreed as well. on the nation's reservations. Based on Arizona's 5 percent transaction privilege tax, the contracts Blaze, though an Indian-owned company, con­ could generate $80 million in potential revenue ceded at the outset that it was the equivalent of for all the states." Unfortunately, however, the a non-Indian. Based on this concession, the Court did not look to tribal impacts, choosing Court found that the case boiled down to the instead to extend its prior bright-line general narrow question of the state's ability to tax non­ rule pertaining to non-Indian contractors, thus Indian federal contractors. Framing the ques­ leaving states free to tax private firms who con­ tion in this way, the Court held that Blaze was tract with federal agencies to provide services to indeed governed by the bright-line rule articu- Tribes on Indian reservations. 0

7 = z NARF ATTORNEY PROFILE = ...... e? Keith Harper joined the i:§ Native American Rights Fund ;: (NARF) as a staff attorney in September 1995. Keith is a z Cl: member of the Cherokee Co) Nation of Oklahoma, received ;: LI.I a B.A. in sociology and psy­ chology from the University of !i California, Berkeley, and a J.D. LI.I i!: from New York University � (NYU) School of Law in 1993. Z While at NYU, he was a Root- Tilden-Snow Scholar, a Fellow at the Center for International Studies, and Articles and Notes Editor for the Journal of International Law & Politics. In addition, Keith served as Chair of the Native American Law Students Association (NALSA) and Area Coordinator on the National NALSA Board. Directly fol­ lowing law school, Keith became an associate at Davis, Polk & Wardwell and then served as law clerk to the Honorable Lawrence W. Pierce of the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Subsequent to the judicial clerkship, Keith was granted a Skadden Arps Fellowship to join NARF where he remains a Columbia, and teaches "Federal Indian Law" at senior staff attorney today. Among other cases, Catholic University Columbus School of Law Keith represents 500,000 individual Indians in a (Fall Semester) and American University class action suit against the United States for the Washington College of Law (Spring Semester). government's failure to properly manage these In 1994, Keith published a note entitled "Does individual Indians' trust funds. Keith also cur­ the United Nations Security Council have the rently serves as President-Elect of the Native Competence to Act as Court and Legislature,'' 27 American Bar Association for the District of NYUJ. INT'L L. & POL. 103. 0

PAGE 8 NARF RESOURCES AND PUBLICATIONS The National Indian Law Library For the modern-day Indian, information is The National Indian Law Library Publications For Sale: priceless in helping their fight to keep tribal (Pricing of publications includes shipping and handling. Publications subject to availability.) homelands intact and traditional tribal ways

alive. The National Indian Law Library has been Th e Bibliography on Indian Economic Development, 2nd providing Indian tribes and Indian law attorneys Edition. 1984 (Updated 1993). Designed as a tool for the with a wealth of Indian law materials for the past protection and regulation of commercial activities on 27 years. The materials are documents ranging Indian reservations. Included in the bibliography are arti­ cles, monographs, memoranda, Tribal codes, and miscel­ from legal pleadings written in vital Indian law laneous materials on Indian economic development. Cost cases to a collection of Tribal codes. for this title is $20.00.

The National Indian Law Library began as a The Na tional Indian Law Library Catalogue, Vo lume I. special library project of the Native American One of The National Indian Law Library's major contribu­ tions to the development of Indian law is the creation, of Rights Fund. It is designed to serve as a clear­ this catalogue. It is arranged by subject-matter index, inghouse for materials on American Indian Law author-title index, plaintiff-defendant index, and NILL for tribes, private and tribal attorneys, legal ser­ number listing. Cost for Th e Na tional In dian Law vice programs, law firms, federal and state gov­ Library Catalogue, Vo lume I, the 1985 Supplement, and ernments and agencies, and for students. the 1989 Supplement has been reduced to $30.00. (NILL anticipates offering a free, searchable up-to-date version Essentially, it was intended to carry out one of of its catalog on the Internet in 1999.) the Native American Rights Fund's priorities, the systematic development of Indian law. The Top Fifty: A Compilation ofSignifica nt Indian Cases, 1990, National Indian Law Library has one of the compiled by the National Indian Law Library, costs $50.00. largest collection of Indian law materials in the Other Publications Offered For Sale by The National nation. Its mission is to continue to develop and Indian Law Library: make accessible a unique and valuable collec­ (Pricing of publications includes shipping and handling. tion of information and to assist people with Publications subject to availability.) their Indian law research needs. Special empha­ sis is placed on helping individuals and organi­ American In dian Law: Cases and Ma terials, 3rd edition, 1991, with 1996 supplement, by Robert N. Clinton, Neil zations who are working on behalf of Native Jessup, Monroe E. Price, price is $45.00. Americans and have the potential to positively influence their lives. The library serves its American In dian Law in a nutshell, 3rd edition, 1998, by patrons by providing reference and basic William C. Canby, price is $26.00. research assistance and by locating and deliver­ American Indians, Tim e and the Law, 1986, by Charles F. ing relevant information. Please contact David Wilkinson, price is $20.00. Selden at (303) 447-8760 or e-mail [email protected] for assistance. 0 Battlefields and Burial Grounds, 1994, by Walter Echo­ Hawk and Roger Echo-Hawk, price is $20.00.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 25, 1998, published by U.S. Government Printing Office, price is $45.00. Federal In dian Law, Cases and Ma terials, 4th edition, 1998, by David Getches, Charles Wilkinson, and Robert A. Williams, Jr., price is $67.40.

NARF LEGAL REVIEW PAGE 9 Felix S. Cohen 's Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 1982 edi­ Public Law 280 tion, edited by Rennard Strickland, price is $90.00. Termination - "To Wipe Out" California Indian Education Handb ook ofAm erican In dian Religious Freedom, 1991 edi­ Barker v. Harvey tion, edited by Christopher Vescey, price is $20.00. Continuing Genocide California Indian Legal Services Th e In dian Child We lfare Handbook: A Legal Guide to the Deganawidah-Quetzalcoatl University Custody and Adoption ofNa tive Americans, 1995, published Native Tribes and Groups of California in 1770 by the American Bar Association, price is $75.00. Known Tribes and Reservations in California in 1972

In dian Claims Commission Decisions 1946-1978. This forty­ Vo lume 1, No . 5 (October 1972) . NILL No . 01000411972. three volume set reports the work of the Indian Claims ARTICLES: Commission. Each volume is sold separately at a cost of Eastern Indians - The Invisible Remnants $55.00. The ICCD In de x is sold at $30.00. The Passamaquoddies The Penobscot In dian Land Area Map, 1992, published by the U.S. The Eastern Indian Research Project Department of the Interior, price is $10.00. Eastern Indian Conference Indian Tribes Eligible for Revenue Sharing Mending the Circle: A Na tive American Repatriation Guide, Statute of Limitations Extended 1996, published by the American Indian Ritual Object Indian Claims Commissions Decisions Repatriation Foundation, price is $45.00. Vo lume 1, No . 6 (November - December 1972). NIL L No . Th e Rights of Indians and Tr ibes, 2nd edition, 1992, by 01000511972. Stephen L. Pevar, price is $13.00. ARTICLES: The War of Ghosts, 1902-1972 A Declaration of War - The Reclamation Act NARF LEGAL REVIEWS HOLDINGS LIST 1972 • 1998* The Allies and The Second Cease-fire *A ll lis ted legal reviews are available fr om NIL L at a cost A Proposal for Overkill of $0.10/page . In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, Vo lume 1, No . 1 (Ju ne 1972) . NILL No . 01000011972. Plaintiff, v. Rogers C.B. Morton, ARTICLES: Secretary of the Interior, Defendant, Development of the National Law Library Civil Action No. 2506-70 History and Development of the Native American United States of America v. States of Nevada and California Rights Fund Recent Native American Rights Fund Case Developments Vo lume 2, No . 1 (January - February 1973) . NILL No . 01000611973. Vo lume 1, No . 2 (July 1972). NILL No . 01000111972. ARTICLES: ARTICLES: It Is Not Necessary for Eagles to be Crows - Laws and Education v. Destruction the Preservation of Indian Culture Other Recent Native American Rights Fund Case Lawyers Between 1\.vo Cultures - The Native American Developments Rights Fund

Vo lume 1, No . 3 (A ugust 1972) . NILL No . 01000211972. Vo lume 2, No . 2 (Ma rch - September 1973) . NIL L No . ARTICLES: 01000711973. Sovereignty Redefined ARTICLES: Indian Claims Set By Statute of Limitations In Pursuit of Accountability Inequity That Cannot Be Erased In Our Lifetime - Joe Vo lume 1, No . 4 (Sep tember 1972) . NIL L No . Natonabah v. Board of Education 01000311972. How Indian Parents can use Natonabah ARTICLES: Pawnee Tradition - A Final Appeal California Indians - Double Genocide The War of Ghosts Continued, 1973-? The Lost Treaties Presidential Accountability The Minnesota Chippewa California Indians for a Fair Settlement Tribe v. Casper W. Weinberger

10 Vo lume 2, No . 3 (October - December 1973). NIL L No . Vo lume 3, No . 2 - Part 2 (A pril - June 1975) . NILL No . 01000811973. 01001111975. ARTICLES: ARTICLES: Making the White Man's Law fit the Indian - The The National Indian Law Library Menominee Restoration Act The Menominee Te rmination Act - A Perfect Example Vo lume 4, Nos. 1 & 2 (A ugust 1977). NILL No . of Indian Watergate 01001211977. Te rminating Termination ARTICLES: How the MRA Fits the Menominee Eastern Indian Land Claims The National Indian Law Library Statute of Limitations Extended Indian Streambed Ownership Affirmed Rosebud Reservation Diminished Indian Law Reporter The Nature of Indian Tribal Jurisdiction Swiftbird Development Vo lume 3, No . 1 (Ja nuary - Ma rch 1975) . NIL L No . Case Development 01000911975. ARTICLES: Vo lume 4, Nos. 3 & 4 (D ecember 1977). NIL L No . "The Fifth Disaster" - The Colonization of the North 01001311977 Slope of Alaska ARTICLES: The Alaska Constitution - Another Kind of Promise to be The Swift Bird Project: An Alternative Rehabilitation Broken Center Mobil Oil Company v. Local Boundary Commission NARF Prison Cases Protecting the World's Largest Native Government Vo lume 5, No . 1 (Winter 1979). NIL L No . 01001411979. Vo lume 3, No . 2 - Part 1 (A pril - June 1975) . NILL No . ARTICLES: OJ 001011975. "We Also Have a Religion": The American Indian Religious ARTICLES: Freedom Act and the Religious Freedom Project of the The Declaration of Independence (Table of Contents) Native American Rights Fund The Pilot Hunting and Fishing Rights The Stage Setting Eastern Land Claims The Prologue - Making Indians Into Other Major Cases White Men Act I - The Revolution Begins Vo lume 6, No . 1 (Fa ll 1980). NIL L No . 01001511980. Act II - Another Kind of Revolution ARTICLES: Act III - The Declaration of Indian NARF Celebrates Its Tenth Anniversary Independence Case Developments The Epilogue - Turning White Men Into Indians Indian Correction Project The Role of the Native American Rights Fund Indian Legal History The Cast of Characters (Some Background Notes) Vo lume 7, No . I (May 1981). NILL No . 01001611981. The Winnebago ARTICLES: The Omaha The Eastern Indian Land Claims The Sioux Case Developments The Mandan, The Arikara, and The Hidatsa Vo lume 7, No . 2 (June 1981). NIL L No . 01001711981. The Crow ARTICLES: The Turtle Mountain Chippewa The Indian Law Support Center The Chippewa Cree National Indian Law Library The Blackfeet Case Feature: The Texas Kickapoo The Assiniboine, The Gros Ventre Case Developments and Some Teton Sioux Urban Indian Pro Bono Project The Shoshone and The Arapahoe NARF's Second Annual Symposium The Salish and The Kootenai The Northern Cheyenne Vo lume 7, No s. 3, 4 (D ecember 1981). NIL L No . 01001811981.

11 ARTICLES: NARF Legal Developments Indian Water Rights: Issue for the 80's Case Developments Vo lume 11, No . 1 (Win ter 1985) . NIL L No . 01002811985. ARTICLES: Vo lume 8, No . 1 (Sp ring & Win ter 1982) . NILL No . Maine Indian Settlement 01001911982. NARF Legal Developments ARTICLES: Spring 1982 SPE CIAL: 15th Anniversary (Summary 1985) . NILL No . Eastern Indian Land Claims Bill 01002911985. Case Developments ARTICLES: Winter 1982 Message from the Executive Director Eastern Indian Claims (Part II) The Quest to Enforce the Old Promises: Indian Law in NARF News the Modern Era Bibliography of Charles Wilkinson Vo lume 9, No . 1 (Sp ring 1983). NIL L No . 01002011983. ARTICLES: HIGHLIGHTS: Win ter 1986. NIL L No . 01003011986. A Look at the Work of An Indispensable Institution ARTICLES: Recent Legal Developments Case Updates

Vo lume 9, No . 2 (Summer 1983). NILL No . Vo lume 11, No . 2 (Spring 1986). NIL L No . 01002111983. 0100231119865. ARTICLES: ARTICLES: The Impact of this Supreme Court Term on Indian Water Water Rights Rights and Other Rights NARF Legal Developments Recent Legal Developments Vo lume 11, No . 3 (Summer 1986). NILL No . Vo lume 9, No . 3 (Fa ll 1983) . NIL L No . 01002211983. 01003211 986 ARTICLES: ARTICLES: Indian Education: The Struggle Continues Alaska Native Tribes Battle Discrimination Recent Legal Developments Revitalizing Tribal Self-Government Through Visions of the Earth Retrocession Case Updates Vo lume 9, No . 4 (Sp ring 1984). NIL L No . 01002311984. ARTICLES: Vo lume 11, No . 4 (Fa ll 1986). NIL L No . 01003311986. Catawba Tribe v. South Carolina ARTICLES: NARF Legal Developments Washington Tribes Prepare for Trial Indian Supreme Court Cases Vo lume 10, No . 1 (Fall 1984). NIL L No . 01002411984. Case Updates ARTICLES: NARF Legal Developments Vo lume 12, No . 1 (Win ter 1987). NIL L No . 01003411987. ARTICLES: Vo lume 10, No . 2 (Win ter 1984). NILL No . 01002511 984. Highlights of Indian Legislation in the 99th Congress ARTICLES: NARF Legal Developments Vo lume 12, No . 2 (Spring 1987). NIL L No . 01003511 987. ARTICLES: Vo lume 10, No . 3 (Sp ring 1985) . NIL L No . 01002611985. Federal Indian Burial Policy ARTICLES: Case Updates Indian Cases: The 1984-85 Supreme Court Term Update on Texas Band of Kickapoos Vo lume 12, No . 3 (Fall 1987). NIL L No . 01003611987. Recent Legal Developments ARTICLES: Tribal Courts Vo lume 10, No . 4 (Fa ll 1985) . NILL No . 01002711985. Case Updates ARTICLES: Indian Gaming

PAGE 12 NARF LEGAL REVIEW Vo lume 13, No . 1 (Win ter 1988). NIL L No . 01003711988. ARTICLES: ARTICLES: 20th Anniversary Declaration of Apology Case Updates

Vo lume 13, No . 2 (Spring 1988). NIL L No . 01003811988. Vo lume 15, No . 4 (Fa ll 1990). NILL No . 01004811990. ARTICLES: ARTICLES: ANCSA Amendments Water Settlement Case Updates Vo lume 13, No . 3 (Summer 1988) . NILL No . 01003911988. Vo lume 16, No . 1 (Winter 1990). NILL No . 01004911991. ARTICLES: ARTICLES: Trust Responsibility Repatriation Act Case Updates Case Updates

Vo lume 13, No . 4 (Fa ll 1988). NIL L No . 01004011988. Vo lume 16, No . 2 (Summer 1991). NILL No . ARTICLES: 01005011991. Sovereignty ARTICLES: Case Updates Sacred Lands and Religious Freedom Legislative Call to Action Vo lume 14, No . 1 (Win ter 1989) . NIL L No . 01004111989. Loopholes in Religious Liberty ARTICLES: Case Updates Tribal Efforts Vo lume 17,No . 1 (Win ter 1992). NILL No . 01005111992. Vo lume 14, No . 2 (Spring 1989). NILL No . 01004211989. ARTICLES: ARTICLES: Rosebud Sioux Tribe Puts The Indian Back in Education Economic Development Law Project Settlement of Kauley v. United States Case Updates Implementation of EPA's Indian Policy Case Updates Vo lume 14, No . 3 (Summer 1989) . NIL L No . 01004311989. Vo lume 18, No . 1 (Win ter/Spring 1993). NILL No . ARTICLES: 01005311993. Federal Recognition ARTICLES: Catawba Tribe Approves Settlement with South Carolina Vo lume 14, No . 4 (Fall 1989) . NIL L No . 01004411989. Case Updates ARTICLES: NARF Receives Human Rights Award Indian Reburial Issue Burial Protection Bills in Congress Vo lume 18, No . 2 (Summer 1993) . NIL L No. Nebraska Burial Legislation 01005411993. Kansas Burial Legislation ARTICLES: Case Updates Discrimination and Native American Religious Rights Native American Free Exercise of Religion Act of 1993 S. Vo lume 15, No . 1 (Winter 1990). NIL L No . 01004511990. 1021: Background and Call to Action ARTICLES: American Indian Religious Freedom Coalition Tribal Code Project Case Updates Case Updates Vo lume 19, No . 1 (Win ter/Spring 1994). NIL L No . Vo lume 15, No . 2 (Spring 1990). NILL No . 01004611990. 01005511 994. ARTICLES: ARTICLES: Settlement Alaska Tribes List Case Updates Catawba Settlement Peyote Case Case Updates

Vo lume 15, No . 3 (Summer 1990). NIL L No . Vo lume 19, No . 2 (Summer/Fall 1994). NIL L No . 01004711990. 01005611994.

NARF LEGAL REVIEW PAGE 13 ARTICLES: Pentagon Interim Rules Would OK Peyote Religious Freedom Bills for Religious Use Alaska Fishing Rights United States Supreme Court Rules Against Tribal Courts Vo lume 20, No . 1 (Win ter/Spring 1995) . NIL L No . Vo lume 23, No . 1 (Win ter/Spring 1998). NILL No . 01005711995. 01006711998. ARTICLES: ARTICLES: Peyote Ruling (Congress Overturns ... ) Court Rules for Indian Religious Freedom Reuben A. Snake U.S. Supreme Court Issues Ruling on Alaska Sovereignty Case Updates Chippewa Cree Tribe Water Rights Bill Introduced in Congress Vo lume 20, No . 2 (Summer/Fall 1995). NIL L No . 01005811995. Vo lume 23, No . 2 (Summer/Fall 1998). NIL L No . ARTICLES: 01006811998. Subsistence Fishing ARTICLES: Federal Funding President Clinton Signs Executive Order on Indian Case Updates Education Oglala Sioux Tribe Develops Environmental Review Code Vo lume 21, No . 1 (Win ter/Spring 1996). NIL L No . NARF Receives Environmental Award 01005911996. 4,000 Native Alaskans March for Sovereignty ARTICLES: 25th Anniversary Indian Law Symposium (25th Anniversary) Religion/Native American Prisoners NARF Annual Report. This is NARF's major report on its NARF Updates programs and activities. The Annual Report is distributed to foundations, major contributors, certain federal and Vo lume 21, No . 2 (Summer/Fall 1996). NIL L No . state agencies, tribal clients, Native American organiza­ 01006011995. tions, and to others upon request. ARTICLES: Indians Sue Federal Government The NARF Legal Review is published biannually by the Pai 'Ohana Land Claim Native American Rights Fund. Third class postage paid at Alaska Native Fishing Rights Claim Boulder, Colorado. Ray Ramirez, Editor. There is no charge for subscriptions, but contributions are requested. Vo lume 22, No . 1 (Win ter/Spring 1997). NIL L No . 01006111997. Tax Status. The Native American Rights Fund is a non­ ARTICLES: profit, charitable organization incorporated in 1971 under Yes, There is Indian Country the laws of the District of Columbia. NARF is exempt from NARF Updates federal income tax under the provisions of Section 501 C Alabama-Coushatta Tribe (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and contributions to Courts Rule in T\voLandmark Cases NARF are tax deductible. The Internal Revenue Service Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes has ruled that NARF is not a "private foundation" as Houma Tribes defined in Section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. Congress Moves to Reform Trust Fund System Main Office: Native American Rights Fund, 1506 Broadway, Vo lume 22, No . 2 (Summer/Fa ll 1997). NIL L No . Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303-447-8760) (FAX 303-443- 01006611997. 7776). http://www.narf.org ARTICLES: Chippewa-Cree Tribe, State of Montana Sign Historic Washington, D.C. Office: Native American Rights Fund, Contract 1712 N Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202-785- NARF Updates 4166) (FAX 202-822-0068). U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Alaska Tribal Sovereignty Case Alaska Office: Native American Rights Fund, 420 L Street, The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Suite 505, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907-276-0680) Oklahoma Claim Victory in Tax Case (FAX 907-276-2466).

14 REVIEW THE NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND z ...... !; For the past 29 years, the 15 attorneys, support people within the limit of available resources. To ;;i staffand Board of Directors of NARF have repre­ achieve this goal NARF's Board of Directors � sented over 200 Tribes in 31 states in such areas defined five priority areas for NARF's work: (1) :I as tribal restoration and recognition, tribal juris­ the preservation of tribal existence; (2) the pro- m ...... :a diction, land claims, hunting and fishing rights, tection of tribal natural resources; (3) the promo- n the protection of Indian religious freedom, and tion of human rights; (4) the accountability of !i; In addition to the great strides governments to Native Americans; and (5) the many others. :a made in achieving justice on behalf of Native development of Indian law. c; :c American people, perhaps NARF's greatest distin­ c _,. guishing attribute has been its availability to NARF's success could not have been achieved en bring excellent, highly ethical legal representa­ without the financial support that we have a;! tion to dispossessed Tribes. The survival and received from throughout the nation. Your par- Z strengthened sovereignty of the nation's 557 fed­ ticipation makes a big difference in our ability to = erally recognized tribes of 1.8 million Native continue to meet ever-increasing needs of impov­ Americans are due, in no small measure, to the erished Indian tribes, groups and individuals. battles waged and won by NARF. The support needed to sustain our nationwide program requires your continued assistance. The accomplishments and growth of NARF over Requests for legal assistance, contributions, or the years confirmed the great need for Indian other inquiries regarding NARF's services may be legal representation on a national basis. This addressed to NARF's main office: 1506 Broadway, legal advocacy on behalf of Native Americans is Boulder, Colorado 80302. Telephone (303) 447-

more crucial now than ever before. NARF strives 8760. Visit our website at http://www.narf.org. to protect the most important rights of Indian

NARF LEGAL REVIEW PAGE 15 ...... Native Village of Tanana

Gilbert B. Blue, Vice Chairman ...... Catawba David Archambault ...... Standing Rock Sioux

Roy Bernal ...... Ta os Pueblo Wallace E. Coffey ...... Comanche Cliv Dore ...... Passamaquoddy Kathryn Harrison ...... Conf ederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Kaleo Patterson ...... Native Hawaiian Ernie L. Stevens, Jr...... Wisconsin Oneida Rebecca Ts osie ...... Pasqua Yaqui Michael P. Williams ...... Yup 'ik Mary T. Wynne ...... Rosebud Sioux

John E. Echohawk Executive Director ...... Pa wnee

NARF LEGAL REVIEW • VOLUME 24, NO. 1 • WINTER/SPRING 1999

NARF Legal Review Non-Profit Org . 1506 Broadway U.S. Postage Boulder, CO 80302 PA ID Boulder, Colorado Permit No. 589

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PA PER