In two separate cases, federal judges have rejected high-profile but long-shot claims by Indian tribes asserting ownership of land tracts in the Northeast. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas C. Platt said the Shinnecock tribe of Long Island, New York (see Jun. 13, Jun. 19 and Jun. 27, 2005), had forfeited its potential claim on 3,600 acres of high-value land in the Hamptons by waiting more than 140 years to assert possession. (John Moreno Gonzales, “Ruling aside, tribe plans to build casino”, Newsday, Dec. 5; “Judge cites passage of time in Shinnecock land claim”, Indianz.com, Dec. 6; ruling in PDF format courtesy Indianz.com). And in New Haven, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton brought homeowners’ ordeal nearer an end Nov. 29 by ruling against the federally unrecognized group that calls itself the Golden Hill Paugussetts, which has been asserting land claims in various Connecticut towns for 14 years. (Gale Courey Toensing, “Golden Hill Paugussetts will appeal rejected land claims”, Indian Country Today, Dec. 11).
Posts Tagged ‘Indian tribes’
Indian-remains law: son of Kennewick Man?
Under California law, if you’re digging on your property and you find prehistoric remains, you must contact the state’s Native American Heritage Commission.
The commission then assigns a person known as the “most-likely descendant” to consult with the landowner. But there’s sometimes tenuous or no ancestral ties between the “descendant” and the uncovered bodies, scientists and American Indians said. … Praetzellis and other researchers said it is more important for American Indians to be involved in the moving of ancient remains than to force them to prove a genetic link after being left out entirely for decades.
“They just have to say, ‘Yeah, I feel culturally connected to those remains,'” said Jeff Fentress, a San Francisco State anthropologist. “It is really up to that person to determine how to handle that burial.”
Landowners often pay consulting fees to persons on the designated “descendant” lists, and some persons of American Indian descent say they would like to be on the lists but were left off because of politics. Some Indian activists are also upset that the state law does not give the “descendant” the right to block development. (Matt Krupnick, “Ancient remains causing problems”, Contra Costa Times, Oct. 18). Earlier: Jul. 16, 2005, etc.
Busy Lizzies in a hanging pot
Think twice about trying to grow your own from nursery stock: If the patent held by biotech firm Syngenta doesn’t get you, the indigenous-flora royalty supposedly owed to the government of Tanzania just might (Antony Barnett, “The new piracy: how West ‘steals’ Africa’s plants”, The Observer (UK), Aug. 27).
Indians Sue, Yet Again, to Ban “Redskins” Name
The only thing worse than a frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous repeat of a frivolous lawsuit:
A group of Native Americans filed a new legal challenge yesterday to trademarks for the name and logo of the Washington Redskins, saying the team’s name is a racial slur that should be changed.
A petition filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by six Native Americans represents a second chance for Indians to challenge the football franchise’s name. The team prevailed in an earlier fight when a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the plaintiffs waited too long under trademark law to object. This time, the complaint was filed with a new set of plaintiffs.
…
“The term ‘redskin’ was and is a pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person,” the complaint says.
Whatever thesaurus the plaintiffs are using, I want one. I’m surprised the complaint didn’t add “just plain icky.”
Update: Canadian residential schools litigation
“Lawyers who have been representing survivors of Canada’s residential school system are expected to get the biggest payment ever recorded for a Canadian class action case.” The federal government will pay about C$80 million in fees, of which half will go to the Regina-based Merchant Law Group and half to a consortium of other lawyers. (“Lawyers set to be paid $80M in school abuse deal”, CTV, May 8; “School abuse deal includes $80M for lawyers”, CBC, May 8). The fees are part of a $2 billion deal intended to resolve portions of the litigation over the federally-sponsored, church-run Indian schools, which were originally accused of permitting the infliction of physical and sexual abuse on some of their students; later the litigation expanded to include charges of “cultural deprivation” and alienation on behalf of thousands of Native Americans who attended the schools, which were geared toward assimilation into Canadian culture (FAQ from CBC on settlement). More: Aug. 23-24, 2000.
Forbes: “My Kingdom for a Casino”
As regular readers of this space know (Apr. 14, etc.), I’ve long taken an interest in the injustices that have been visited on innocent landowners in New York, Connecticut and many other states by lawsuits seeking to revive long-defunct Indian land claims. I’ve got a guest column in the latest Forbes (“On My Mind”, May 8, reg) briefly summing up a few of the things wrong with this litigation. A sample:
Until lately Anglo-American law sought a careful balance between the goal of restoring wrongfully taken property to its rightful owners, on the one hand, and the equally valid goal of securing everyone’s property against the danger that a claimant will show up some day to assert a speculative defect in title. Hence doctrines aimed at preventing old disputes from staying alive indefinitely: statutes of limitation, adverse possession, “acquiescence” in unchallenged political boundaries.
In a series of rulings over the past 30 years, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that Indians are wholly different from other land claimants. Law professors have cheered: What cause is more romantic than that of dispossessed Indians? (Somehow owners of small farms in upstate New York never seem to merit the underdog label.) The rulings also constitute a stunning victory for a scrappy cadre of Legal Services lawyers; a few of these antiestablishment types have found themselves, over the arc of a career, gradually transmuted through their tribal connections into highly paid casino promoters, in a transformation worthy of a Balzac or Stendhal novel.
(cross-posted at Point of Law)
“Eastern Law Firms Roll the Dice on Indian Law”
Tribal land claims are getting to be big business (see Jan. 12, etc.), and prominent law firms including Philadelphia’s Cozen O’Connor and Roseland, N.J.’s Lowenstein Sandler are among those lining up to assist Indian tribes (and their wealthy non-Indian backers) in filing lawsuits against hapless landowners as leverage for casino schemes. And here’s a choice quote from Robert Odawi Porter, director of the Syracuse University Center for Indigenous Law, Governance and Citizenship:
In cases where land-claim suits are funded by outsiders, the tribe is usually a passive participant in the litigation, says Porter. Such arrangements are permitted under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, which gives states authority to negotiate revenue-sharing agreements with tribal casinos.
“Everything is dictated by the developer — I call it the ‘sit back and take a check approach,'” Porter says.
(Charles Toutant, New Jersey Law Journal/Law.com, Mar. 20).
Also, updates: in late 2004 a federal court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Delaware Indians’ claim to land in the Allentown, Pa. area (Northampton County) including Binney & Smith’s Crayola factory (PDF, at Indianz.com)(see Feb. 9, 2004). And, alas, none other than the Bush Justice Department has weighed in with a petition for certiorari urging the Supreme Court to overturn a Second Circuit panel’s landmark ruling (see Jul. 29, 2005) which threw out the Cayugas’ lawsuit as not pressed in a timely enough way, a ruling which (if it stands) would cast doubt on the validity of of most of the new wave of Indian land litigation.
Indian land claims: give us Denver
We’ve covered this set of issues numerous times in the past, but here are some fresh details:
When the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act became law in 1988, no one imagined that it would become a Trojan Horse that would deliver Las Vegas-style casino gambling into communities across America. Having saturated local markets, many tribes are now seeking to acquire land near other, sometimes-distant, population centers, and converting it to “sovereign” territory, in an effort to shoehorn casinos into areas where they’re often not wanted by local populations. Once land becomes part of a reservation, it typically becomes exempt from local taxes, state labor laws, municipal ordinances, zoning restrictions and environmental review. In one of the most egregious cases, in 2004, the Cheyenne-Arapahoe Tribes of Oklahoma filed a 27 million acre land claim which included all of Denver and Colorado Springs, but offered to drop it in exchange for the approval of a Las Vegas-style casino near Denver Airport.
“These efforts are being funded by ‘shadowy’ developers who underwrite the litigation expenses, lobbyist fees and even the cost of land in exchange for a cut of the profits,” James T. Martin, the executive director of the United South and Eastern Tribes, told the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in May 2005. “If even one of these deals is approved, the floodgates for this kind of ‘reservation shopping’ will open throughout the country.” (Mr. Martin, it should be said, is no opponent of gambling: his organization includes tribes whose main goal is to thwart new competition against their own casinos.)
(Fergus M. Bordewich, “The Least Transparent Industry in America”, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 5)(subscriber-only).
Hawaiian tribal recognition
Update: Stifling archaeology, the tribal way
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is now sponsoring that very troublesome bill, formerly championed by the departed Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, to amend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act so as to expand Indian tribes’ power to assert control over prehistoric human remains not associated with any still-existing tribe (see Oct. 18, 2004). The bill would go far to reverse scientists’ victory in the nine-year court battle over tribes’ asserted right on cultural grounds to reclaim the remains of 9.300-year-old Kennewick Man (Aug. 9, 2004, etc.) Cleone Hawkinson, president of Friends of America’s Past, “says the change would make it impossible to study the earliest inhabitants of North America. ‘American archaeology would come to a standstill,’ she said.” A hearing before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is scheduled for Jul. 28. (Sandi Doughton, “Fate of Kennewick Man study unclear”, Seattle Times, Jul. 15).
More: reader Carey Gage writes in to advise, “check out Moira Breen’s site on this issue. She has been all over it for years.”