Posted on Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 1:54 pm Posted by Andrew Hamm
This week we’re highlighting testimony petitions asking the Supreme Court to review, among other things, whether Alaska Native “Indian tribes” can receive CARES payments, whether courts should defer or adjudicate disputes over church property, and the extent of Clarity Police officers must explain to the suspect their right to a lawyer before and during interrogation Miranda vs. Arizona.
In 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Congress has established a different relationship with Alaska Natives than it does with Native Americans in the lower 48 states. Rejecting the reservations, ANCSA authorized the creation of “regional corporations” and “village corporations” to administer indigenous lands, administer settlement funds and work for the benefit of Alaska Natives. Quickly advance to a file Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security ActWhere Congress directed the Secretary of the Treasury to disburse $ 8 billion of relief funds to the governing bodies of “Indian tribes” as specified in Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. This act defines an “Indian tribe” as “any Indian tribe, division, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska indigenous village or regional or village corporation … that is recognized as being eligible for special programs and services that The United States offers nations to Indians because of their Indian status. “
In April 2020, several tribes filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Treasury to block payments to Alaska Native companies. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed that companies are not eligible to receive CARES payments because these groups are not “Indian tribes”. From a DC circuit point of view, the above definition means that only officially recognized Alaska Native companies are eligible for Indian tribes. However, DC Circuit continued, recognition is a “technical legal term” in Indian law and companies are not recognized in this formal sense. Petitions from the Secretary of the Treasury)Mnuchin against the Confederate tribes of the Chehali Protectorate(And Alaska Native companies)Alaska Native Village Association Against Confederate Tribes in the Chehalis ReservationAsk the judges to review this decision. Among other things, the petitions argue that the DC circuit reading is inconsistent with Congressional intent in the CARES Act and with decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which hears the majority of Alaskan Native cases.
Three judges ‘petitions present contradictory allegations regarding the courts’ role in church disputes. In the case of 1871 Watson vs. Jones, The Supreme Court has ordered that consideration be given to how church bodies resolve disputes over church property. However, in 1979, the Supreme Court in Jones vs. Wolf Courts were permitted to apply “neutral principles of law” to resolving such matters, although courts could still be adjourned. Petitions in Episcopal Church of All Saints (Fort Worth) v. Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth And the Episcopal Church v. Fort Worth Episcopal Diocese Have the judges review the Texas Supreme Court’s decision that avoided acquiescence and instituted stronger protections under the First Amendment. In contrast, the petition in Scholes v. Seattle Church Judges are asked to review the Washington Court of Appeals decision that chose to respectful and demand that the courts apply impartial principles.
Miranda vs. Arizona It was notoriously demanding that the police inform the suspect of their right to a lawyer before the interrogation began. in a Michigan vs MatthewsMurder suspect Larica Matthews, police advised her right to generally contact a lawyer, but they did not explicitly state that she was entitled to have a lawyer present during interrogation. Then Matthews admitted to shooting her boyfriend. The lower court, affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, overturned Matthews’ statements on the grounds that the warning was flawed. In its petition, Michigan asked judges to review the decision because state and federal courts are divided over whether the public warning meets Miranda.
This and others Petitions of the week Below:
Scholes v. Seattle Church
the case: Whether in a dispute between a local community and its former sect over ownership of property that the community has a legal title to, the First Amendment allows courts to apply the rule of absolute compliance with assertions of ownership by the community.
Episcopal Church of All Saints (Fort Worth) v. Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
the case: Whether the Texas Supreme Court’s decision granting sanctuary and pastor’s home to the petitioner, Episcopal Church of All Saints (Fort Worth), to a dissident faction is inconsistent with the petitioner’s parish will and express trust provisions are consistent with free practice and the terms of incorporation.
Episcopal Church v. Fort Worth Episcopal Diocese
Issues(1) Whether the First Amendment requires courts to enforce explicit confidence in church documents (as some judicial authorities state, in line with Jones vs. WolfFirst Guarantee), or whether state law may render such funds unenforceable (as others believe); (2) Whether the First Amendment requires courts to acquiesce to churches on matters of the political system (as some jurisdictions provide, in line with Jones“Second Guarantee), or whether the courts may apply state law to determine the structure of the church (as others believe); and (3) whether the neutral principles approach can be constitutionally applied – either retrospectively or retrospectively – to resolve church ownership disputes.
Mnuchin against the Confederate tribes of the Chehali Protectorate
the case: Whether the original Alaskan regional and village companies created according to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act They are the “Indian tribe.”[s]Purposes Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act.
Alaska Native Village Association Against Confederate Tribes in the Chehalis Reservation
the case: Whether the native regional and village firms in Alaska are “Indian tribes” under Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act It is thus eligible for emergency relief funds under Title V of Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act.
Michigan vs Matthews
the case: Either Miranda vs. Arizona Satisfied when a detained suspect is notified at the beginning of the interrogation that he has the right to a lawyer, but is not explicitly informed that he has the right to have an attorney present before and during the interrogation.
Petitions of the Week: CARES Act Payments to Alaska Natives, Courts in Church Ownership Disputes, Miranda Warnings and more,
Scotus Blog (November 20, 2020, 1:54 pm), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/petitions-of-the-week-cares-act-payments-for-alaska-natives-courts-in – Disputes-property-ecclesiastical-miranda-warnings-and more /