Federal Indian Law

Introduction to Federal Indian Law, broken down by years: 1492, 1787, 1828, 1887, 1934, 1953, 1968 to the present. Includes major cases and additional resources

Brief for Association of Commerce & Industry as Amici Curiae, Beaudry v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al.

Plaintiff-Appellee Craig Beaudry seeks to make New Mexico the sole jurisdiction in the nation in which the mere act of enforcing an arms-length contract against a breach- lawfully and in compliance with the contract\u27s negotiated terms--can result in the enforcing party being liable under tort to pay compensatory and punitive damages to the breaching party. Affirming such a rule would upend long-established business principles and expectations; convolute fundamental distinctions between contract and tort law; materially invade and alter established bodies of substantive law in other areas; and create bad law and even worse policy for the people and businesses of New Mexico by creating an unpredictable business environment, increasing the costs of doing business, overburdening the judiciary with unnecessary litigation, stifling economic growth, and discouraging investment in the state

Hearsay in New Mexico

Introduction to the New Mexico rule against hearsay, Rule 11-803 NMRA

Brief for Southwest Indian Law Clinic as Amici Curiae, United States v. Smith

Prior cases, have assumed, without analysis that the ACA applies to Indian Country. This review of the ACA failed to consider and incorporate clearly established Indian law principles and foundational tenets of criminal law in the analysis of its applicability to Indians and Indian Country. Most importantly, the precedent and the Court below failed to understand the racial component involved in the analysis. These failures to understand the principles of Indian law and criminal law, have rendered haphazard and incoherent decisions. Amici seek to bring clarity to the complex jurisdictional interplay and provide a practical framework for the proper analysis in applying the ACA and determining whether jurisdiction exists for purposes of prosecuting conduct occurring in Indian Country. Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711 (1946) involved a non-Indian defendant’s rape of an Indian victim -- and thus, the Court did not reach the application of the ACA to Indian defendants under the ICCA. There can be no such application consistent with clearly establish principles of federal Indian law and jurisdiction

Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae, Fortino Alvarez v. Randy Tracy

Amici’s brief is relevant because it squarely address the central issue of whether a tribal exhaustion rule ought to apply in habeas proceedings filed under 25 U.S.C. § 1303, and if so, what standards and exceptions apply to allow federal review of a tribal order of detention. Amici offer substantial experience in the field of federal habeas corpus, and criminal law in Indian country. The brief is desirable because it will provide the Court the benefit of the research, legal analysis and experience amici bring to this important issue. The NACDL includes a Native American Justice Committee that is concerned with the rights of Native Americans who are accused of crimes, and has testified before the U.S. Congress and Indian tribal government bodies on those issues. Barbara Creel, a former Assistant Federal Defender has testified before Congress and the Indian Law and Order Commission on the right to counsel for Native Americans accused of crime in tribal court and on the access to the writ of habeas corpus under ICRA. SILC has also successfully litigated numerous federal habeas corpus petitions under 25 U.S.C. § 1303, and has a unique understanding of the individual rights of defendants vis- a-vis their tribe. Amici offer a special expertise in Indian law, sovereignty, and civil rights

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health