Native American Rights Fund · human rights,NARF strives to enforce and strengthen ... year-old Native American child attending public school in ... behalf of Yup’ik speaking Alaska

Native American Rights FundNative American Rights Fund

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................page 2

Executive Director’s Report ..........................................................................................................................................page 4

Chairman’s Message ......................................................................................................................................................page 5

The Board of Directors ................................................................................................................................................page 6

The National Support Committee ................................................................................................................................page 7

The Preservation of Tribal Existence ............................................................................................................................page 8

The Protection of Tribal Natural Resources ..............................................................................................................page 14

The Promotion of Human Rights ..............................................................................................................................page 20

Major Activities 2001 NARF Case Map ......................................................................................................................page 22

The Accountability of Governments ..........................................................................................................................page 28

The Development of Indian Law ................................................................................................................................page 32

Treasurer’s Report ......................................................................................................................................................page 34

Contributors ................................................................................................................................................................page 35

NARF Staff ..................................................................................................................................................................page 40

Native American Rights Fund - page 1

Native American Rights Fund - Annual Report 2008

Main Office - Native American Rights Fund1506 BroadwayBoulder, CO 80302303-447-8760http://www.narf.org

Washington, D.C. Office - Native American Rights Fund420 L Street, Suite 505Anchorage, Alaska 99501907-276-0680

Alaska Office - Native American Rights FundNative American Rights Fund1712 N Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20036202-785-4166

Contents

The cover for the NARF Annual Report: HOPE – a word thathas permeated throughout our nation this past year. Hope thatthe world that we now live in can be changed for the better toinsure the survival of our future generations. Hope that allpeoples come to realize that we all share this land together.Hope that we can truly comprehend that showing respect forour differences is what binds us as one. Hope for the under-standing that the issues posed to us today are worldwide andrequire Indigenous peoples and other peoples around the worldto work together to protect their common interests.Indigenous cultures, with their close ties to the earth and tothe universe, bring valuable empirical knowledge to the world.Tribal oral histories are a tremendous resource as they reachinto data-sparse time periods unavailable to modern society.After over 500 years of knowing the importance of hope – weremain ready and willing to share with the world our fortitude,our endurance, and our survival. ❂

Tax Status: The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is a nonprofit, charitable organization incorporated in 1971 under the laws of the District ofColumbia. NARF is exempt from federal income tax under the provisions ofSection 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Contributions to NARF aretax deductible. The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that NARF is not a“private foundation” as defined in Section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.NARF was founded in 1970 and incorporated in 1971 in Washington, D.C.

Are you ready to hear our voices? We hope so.

The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is the oldestand largest nonprofit national Indian rights organizationin the country devoting all its efforts to defending andpromoting the legal rights of Indian people on issuesessential to their tribal sovereignty, their naturalresources, and their human rights. NARF believes inempowering individuals and communities whose rights,economic self-sufficiency, and political participation havebeen systematically eroded or undermined.

At its inception in 1970, NARF believed that the besthope for Indian survival and development rests with themaintenance of the tribe as an institution. The inherentsovereign powers of a tribe to hold land, to govern tribalmembers and to command the respect of other units ofgovernment are essential to an Indian nation concept.Throughout the past 38 years, NARF has held fast to thishope and through its work has insured that this concepthas become a reality.

Every year NARF receives far more requests for assis-tance than it can afford to take on. Our ability to take onmost of our cases continues to be dependent on the generous support of the thousands of individuals whocontribute to us, but unfortunately these contributionsfall short of the legal support needs in Indian country.NARF takes on cases on behalf of tribes and Native orga-nizations that may have a potential precedent settingimpact on all Indigenous peoples. Our battles continue tobe against the federal government, state governments,local governments, and corporations who are impedingon tribal sovereignty and culture. Our resources are lim-ited and we must choose those battles carefully. Ourenergy and resources are aimed at those governmentswho refuse to accept that the United States Constitutionrecognizes that Indian tribes are independent govern-mental entities with inherent authority over their members and territory. In treaties with the United States,Indian tribes ceded millions of acres of land in exchangefor the guarantee that the federal government would protect the tribes’ right to self-government.

NARF’s existence would not be possible without thosecontributions of the thousands of individuals who have

offered their knowledge, courage, and vision to help guideNARF on its quest. Of equal importance, NARF’s financialcontributors have graciously provided the resources togive our efforts life. Contributors such as the FordFoundation have been with NARF since its inception.The Open Society Institute, the Bay and PaulFoundations, and the Unger Foundation have also madecontributions the past several years. Finally, the positiveeffects of NARF’s work are reflected in the financial contributions by a growing number of tribal governments.United, these financial, moral, and intellectual gifts provide the framework for NARF to fulfill its goal ofsecuring the right to self-determination to which allNative American peoples are entitled.

NARF’s PrioritiesOne of the initial responsibilities of NARF’s first Board

of Directors was to develop priorities that would guide theNative American Rights Fund in its mission to preserveand enforce the legal rights of Native Americans. TheCommittee developed five priorities that continue to lead NARF today:

• Preservation of tribal existence• Protection of tribal natural resources• Promotion of Native American human rights• Accountability of governments to Native Americans• Development of Indian law and educating the public

about Indian rights, laws, and issues

page 2 - Native American Rights Fund

Introduction | NARF


Under the priority of the preservation of tribal existence,NARF works to construct the foundations that are neces-sary to empower tribes so that they can continue to liveaccording to their Native traditions, to enforce theirtreaty rights, to insure their independence on reservationsand to protect their sovereignty.

Throughout the process of European conquest and colonization of North America, Indian tribes experienceda steady diminishment of their land base to a mere 2.3percent of its original size. Currently, there are approxi-mately 55 million acres of Indian-controlled land in thecontinental United States and about 44 million acres ofNative-owned land in Alaska. An adequate land base andcontrol over natural resources are central components ofeconomic self-sufficiency and self-determination, and assuch, are vital to the very existence of tribes. Thus, muchof NARF’s work involves the protection of tribal naturalresources.

Although basic human rights are considered a universaland inalienable entitlement, Native Americans face anongoing threat of having their rights undermined by theUnited States government, states, and others who seek to

limit these rights. Under the priority of the promotion ofhuman rights, NARF strives to enforce and strengthenlaws which are designed to protect the rights of NativeAmericans to practice their traditional religion, to usetheir own language, and to enjoy their culture.

Contained within the unique trust relationship betweenthe United States and Indian nations is the inherent dutyfor all levels of government to recognize and responsiblyenforce the many laws and regulations applicable toIndian peoples. Because such laws impact virtually everyaspect of tribal life, NARF maintains its involvement inthe legal matters pertaining to accountability of govern-ments to Native Americans.

The coordinated development of Indian law and educating the public about Indian rights, laws, and issuesis essential for the continued protection of Indian rights.This primarily involves establishing favorable courtprecedents, distributing information and law materials,encouraging and fostering Indian legal education, andforming alliances with Indian law practitioners and otherIndian organizations. ❂


Executive Director’s Message | NARF 2008 marked the 38th year that the

Native American Rights Fund has provided legal advice and representationto Native Americans on major issuesthroughout the United States. As aresult of our advocacy efforts, we wereable to win several important victories

on behalf of our Native American clients during the year.In Ahtna Tene Nene’Subsistence Committee v. Alaska

Board of Game, NARF represents several Alaska Nativetribes and communities who depend on subsistence huntingand fishing for their livelihood. We were successful in convincing a state court to overturn state regulations thatseverely restricted and, in some cases, eliminated AlaskaNative subsistence uses of moose and caribou in violationof their subsistence hunting and fishing rights under TitleVIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA).

In State v. Dementieff, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsupheld the Federal Subsistence Board’s customary and traditional use finding for subsistence users of moose bymembers of the Chistochina Tribe of Alaska in a challengebrought by the State of Alaska. The positive customary andtraditional use finding entitles Chistochina tribal membersto the priority for subsistence users over other users of theresource under ANILCA.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Louisianaand NARF were successful in their representation of a five-year-old Native American child attending public school inSt. Tammany Parish who wore his hair in a neat braiddown his back in accordance with his religion. The schoolhad advised the child’s mother that he would be requiredto cut his hair to continue to attend school even though itviolated his family’s religion. After negotiations by ACLUand NARF, the school reversed its position and allowed thechild to attend school without cutting his hair.

The ACLU of Alaska and NARF were also successful inNick v. Bethel, a lawsuit against the State of Alaska onbehalf of Yup’ik speaking Alaska Native voters for violatingthe Voting Rights Act’s provisions requiring languageassistance at the polls. The U.S. District Court in Alaska

ordered the State to provide written ballots in the Yup’iklanguage, to publicize all election notices and informationin Yup’ik, and create a new statewide position to overseeNative language assistance.

In Tanana v. State, an Alaska Superior Court held thatAlaska tribes possess inherent power to adjudicate proceedings in tribal courts involving their children underthe Indian Child Welfare Act. NARF represents severaltribes in the case who challenged the position of the Stateof Alaska that state courts have exclusive jurisdiction overchild custody proceedings. The State has appealed the decision.

NARF also won a federal lawsuit in Alaska involving theIndian Child Welfare Act in Kaltag v. State. The U.S.District Court in Alaska held that an adoption in the tribalcourt of the Kaltag Tribe was entitled to full faith and creditso that the State of Alaska had to recognize the adoptiondecree. The State has appealed the decision.

In another Indian Child Welfare Act case, NARF success-fully represented the Osage Nation of Oklahoma andsecured their absolute and unconditional right to inter-vene in child custody proceedings involving an Indianchild eligible for membership in their tribe. In People ex rel A.T., a Colorado state court allowed the Osage Nationto appear in the proceedings by any representative of itschoosing, including a representative that is not an attorney. If it is an attorney, the court held the Act does notrequire that attorney to associate with local counsel.

These achievements on behalf of our Native Americanclients and many other activities on their behalf carried outin 2008 would not have been possible without the ongoingsupport of our many financial contributors. We take thisopportunity to thank you again for your support and weurge you to continue that support as we continue to provideaccess to justice to Native Americans across the country. ❂

John E. EchohawkExecutive Director




I come from the Ak-Chin IndianCommunity in Southern Arizona. Ak-Chin is an O’odham word translatedto mean”place where the wash losesitself in the sand or ground.” My peoplehave inhabited our lands for thousandsof years. We relied on a farming tech-

nique that depended on “washes” which captured seasonalfloods created by winter snows and summer rains. Weemployed this natural form of irrigation by plantingdownslope from a wash, allowing flood waters to slideover our plots of corn, squash, and beans. As the result ofcontinued growth in the surrounding communities, thewater that we depended on was being depleted. Our com-munity then began a twenty year struggle with the UnitedStates government to secure our water rights. In 1988our water rights settlement act was passed and guaran-teed us 75,000 acre feet of permanent water from theColorado River. During this struggle for protecting ourway of life – NARF was there for us.

In representing over 250 tribes since 1970, NARF andits Board of Directors have come to understand the deepresponsibility that we all have in preserving the veryfoundation of our cultures. Although some issues andconflicts have been resolved, history has taught us to bewary of our hard fought victories and to be prepared for acontinued fight, and prepared NARF continues to be.

NARF’s reputation in achieving justice on behalf ofNative American people and in bringing excellent andhighly ethical legal representation to tribes has not goneunnoticed in national and international levels. The newlyelected Obama Administration has called on the NativeAmerican Rights Fund to help formulate its policies for ourtribal nations. NARF Executive Director John Echohawk,and former NARF attorneys Bob Anderson and KeithHarper were called upon by President Obama to serve onhis Transition Team. President Obama is also consideringNARF Alaska attorney Heather Kendall-Miller for theposition of Native American Affairs Senior Advisor in hisAdministration. President Obama has already appointedJodi Archambault Gillette, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and daughter of former NARF Board member DaveArchambault, as one the three Deputy Associate Directorsof the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. This is the firsttime a Native has been appointed to this position. OtherNatives have been appointed or are being mentioned forother important positions in the Department of theInterior. We do have hope.

NARF’s importance in Indian country cannot be over-looked. As our tribal nations ready themselves to addressthe issues that we are facing in the 21st Century – NARFmust be by our side. As we begin to address the issues ofclimate change and its impact on our lands and way of life– NARF can help lead the way. As we battle our adver-saries in the courts – NARF can provide us direction.Indian country needs NARF now more than ever.However, NARF’s efforts cannot continue without yourfinancial contributions. We sincerely ask for your con-tinued support so that we can meet these challenges andhelp heal our people and our lands. ❂

Delia CarlyleChairman

Chairman’s Message | NARF

Board of Directors | NARFThe Native American Rights Fund has a governing

board composed of Native American leaders from acrossthe country -- wise and distinguished people who arerespected by Native Americans nationwide. IndividualBoard members are chosen based on their involvementand knowledge of Indian issues and affairs, as well as theirtribal affiliation, to ensure a comprehensive geographicalrepresentation. The NARF Board of Directors, whosemembers serve a maximum of six years, provide NARFwith leadership and credibility, and the vision of its mem-bers is essential to NARF’s effectiveness in representingits Native American clients. ❂

NARF’s Board of Directors: (left to right)

Richard Luarkie (Pueblo of Laguna); Jim Gray (Osage Nation -

Oklahoma); Fred Cantu, Jr. (Saginaw Chippewa); Woody Widmark

(Sitka Tribe - Alaska); Paul Ninham, (outgoing Board member

Oneida Nation of Wisconsin); Lydia Olympic (Yupik/Aleut - Alaska);

Billy Frank (Nisqually Tribe - Washington); Kunani Nihipali,

Vice-Chairman (Native Hawaiian - Hawaii); seated -

Delia Carlyle, Chairman (Ak Chin Indian Community - Arizona).

(Not Pictured) – Elbridge Coochise (Hopi - Arizona);

Anthony Pico (Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians - California);

and new Board members Gerald Danforth (Oneida - Wisconsin);

Miko Beasley Denson (Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians);

Ron His Horse Is Thunder (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe).



Randy Bardwell, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Katrina McCormick Barnes Jaime Barrientoz, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa IndiansJohn Bevan Wallace Coffey, ComancheAda Deer, MenomineeHarvey A. DennenbergLucille A. Echohawk, Pawnee Jane FondaJames GarnerEric GinsburgJeff GinsburgRodney Grant, OmahaChris E. McNeil, Jr., Tlingit-Nisga’aBilly Mills, Oglala LakotaAmado Peña, Jr., Yaqui/ChicanoNancy Starling RossWayne RossMarc RudickPam RudickErnie Stevens, Jr., Wisconsin OnieidaAndrew Teller, Isleta PuebloVerna Teller, Isleta PuebloRichard Trudell, Santee SiouxRebecca Tsosie, Pasqua Yaqui Tzo-Nah, Shoshone BannockAine UngarRt. Rev. William C. Wantland, SeminoleW. Richard West, Southern CheyenneRandy Willis, Oglala LakotaTeresa Willis, UmatillaMary Wynne, Rosebud Sioux


National Support Committee | NARFThe National Support Committee (NSC) assists NARF with its fund raising and public relations efforts nationwide.

Some of the individuals on the Committee are prominent in the field of business, entertainment and the arts. Others areknown advocates for the rights of the underserved. All of the 32 volunteers on the Committee are committed to upholdingthe rights of Native Americans. ❂

The Preservation of Tribal ExistenceNARF works to construct the foundations that are

necessary to empower tribes so that they can continue tolive according to their Native traditions, to enforce theirtreaty rights, to insure their independence on reserva-tions, and to protect their sovereignty. Specifically,NARF’s legal representation centers on sovereignty andjurisdiction issues, federal recognition and restoration oftribal status, and economic development. Thus, the focusof NARF’s work involves issues relating to the preservationand enforcement of the status of tribes as sovereign governments. Tribal governments possess the power toregulate the internal affairs of their members as well asother activities within their reservations. Jurisdictionalconflicts often arise with states, the federal government,and others over tribal sovereignty.

Tribal SovereigntyThe focus of NARF’s work under this priority is the pro-

tection of the status of tribes as sovereign, self-governingentities. The United States Constitution recognizes thatIndian tribes are independent governmental entities withinherent authority over their members and territory. In treaties with the United States, Indian tribes ceded millions of acres of land in exchange for the guaranteethat the federal government would protect the tribes’

right to self-government. From the early 1800s on, theSupreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the fundamentalprinciple that tribes retain inherent sovereignty overtheir members and their territory. However, beginningwith the decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe,435 U.S. 191 (1978) and with increasing frequency inrecent years, the Supreme Court has steadily chippedaway at this fundamental principle, both by restrictingtribal jurisdiction and by extending state jurisdiction.These decisions by the Supreme Court have made thispriority more relevant than ever, and have led to a TribalSovereignty Protection Initiative in partnership with theNational Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and Tribesnationwide to restore the traditional principles of inherenttribal sovereignty where those have been undermined andto safeguard the core of sovereignty that remains.

This initiative consists of three components. The firstcomponent is the Tribal Supreme Court Project, thefocus of which is to monitor cases potentially headed tothe Supreme Court and those which have already beenaccepted for review. An effort is made to help keep casesthat have no chance of winning out of the Court. Whencases are accepted, the Project helps ensure that theattorneys representing the Indian interests have all thesupport they need, and helps coordinate the filing of a



limited number of strategic amicus briefs. A secondcomponent of the Initiative is to weigh in on judicialnominations at the lower court and the Supreme Courtlevels. Finally, there is a legislative component to fightbills that are against tribal interests and to affirmativelypush legislation to overturn adverse Supreme Court decisions.

In addition to the tribal sovereignty protection initiative,other work within this overall priority is related to thefederal recognition of tribal status and the concomitantestablishment of a government to government relation-ship with tribes, and the environmental law and policyinitiative. NARF launched the Tribal Supreme CourtProject in conjunction with NCAI in 2001. Since 2001,the Project has been involved with ten cases – four wins,four losses, and two draws. This is an impressive trackrecord given that before the inception of the Projecttribes were losing 90% of these cases. In addition, theProject works behind the scenes to ensure that tribal victories in Courts of Appeals are denied review by theSupreme Court.

The Tribal Supreme Court Project is housed at NARF’soffice in Washington, D.C., and is staffed by one NARFattorney and by support staff. In an effort to foster greatercoordination in advocacy before the Supreme Court, anAdvisory Board of tribal leaders, comprised of NCAIExecutive Committee members and other tribal leaderswilling to volunteer their time, also assists the Project.The Board’s role is to provide necessary political and trib-al perspective to the legal and academic expertise. TheProject has also established a Working Group – a group ofmore than 200 noted attorneys and academics fromaround the nation who participate in the Project as theirinterest, time, and resources allow.

To achieve the goals of the Project, NARF monitorscases which appear to be headed for the Supreme Court,and organizes, coordinates and contributes to a nation-wide Indian amicus brief writing network. Amicus briefsallow those not directly involved in litigation, but poten-tially impacted by the outcome, to provide informationand arguments directly to the Court. By bringing together

experienced Indian law practitioners and scholars to discuss and agree upon a coordinated amicus brief writingstrategy in each case, and by assisting the parties, NARFensures that the most effective and focused argumentsare made before the Court on behalf of Indian Country.

Unfortunately, there were two significant setbacks forthe Supreme Court Project. In June 2008, in a disap-pointing 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts,the Supreme Court ruled that tribal courts do not havejurisdiction over a discrimination action by tribal membersagainst a non-Indian bank arising out of the sale of non-Indian fee land on a reservation to non-Indians. PlainsCommerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co. wasthe first Indian law case since the addition of Chief JusticeRoberts and Justice Alito to the Court. Although it is onlyone case, the opinion is disturbing since a majority of theCourt was willing to ignore the Bank’s extensive on-reservation dealings including its successful use of theTribal Court in numerous other cases against tribal members and to rely on a hyper-technical distinction tofurther chip away at tribal sovereignty. It is unclear whatthe long-term effects of the decision will be, but it is nota promising beginning to the Roberts era. NARF was co-counsel on this case.

In another disappointing outcome, the Supreme Court


issued its opinion in Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker,vacating the opinion of and remanding the case to theCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which had upheldan award of $2.5 billion in punitive damages in a classaction lawsuit against Exxon as a result of the 1989 ExxonValdez oil spill in Prince William Sound. This decisionimpacts a number of Alaska Native villages that dependon subsistence fishing, hunting and gathering and wereamong the most affected by the disaster. Their membersare included within a larger group of class action plain-tiffs. The Court was equally divided (Justice Alito did notparticipate) on the question of whether maritime lawallows corporate liability for punitive damages based onthe acts of its agents, leaving the Ninth Circuit opinionwhich had held that it does allow punitive damages undis-turbed. However, a majority held that the award of $ 2.5billion was clearly excessive under maritime commonlaw, and that in the circumstances of this case should belimited to the award of compensatory damages, or $507.5million. Each class plaintiff will now receive about

$15,500 in compensatory damages and an equal amountin punitive damages, for a total award of roughly $31,000per class member. NARF filed an amicus brief in this caseon behalf of the many Alaska Natives who suffered fromthe oil spill.

Unfortunately, Native peoples face another difficultterm in the Supreme Court because it has just grantedcertiorari in three cases in which the Native interestswere victorious in the Courts of Appeals. The first case,United States v. Navajo Nation, concerns the royalty ratesnegotiated for resource extraction on the Navajo reserva-tion and whether the United States has met its trustresponsibility in negotiating these rates. The second,State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, concernswhether the State of Hawaii should be enjoined from sellingor transferring “ceded lands” held in trust until theclaims of Native Hawaiians to the ceded lands have beenresolved. The third Carcieri v. Kempthorne, is a caseinvolving a challenge by the State of Rhode Island to theauthority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land intotrust for the benefit of the Narragansett Indian Tribeunder the provisions of the 1934 Indian ReorganizationAct. Rhode Island argued that the Secretary’s authorityto take land into trust for the benefit of “Indians” was limited by Congress to recognized Indian tribes nowunder federal jurisdiction in 1934 or in the alternative,that the 1978 Rhode Island Settlement Act repealed anysuch authority.

Through the Judicial Selection Project of the TribalSovereignty Protection Initiative, NARF continues itswork with the National Congress of American Indians inresearching the backgrounds and evaluating the recordsof judicial nominees to the U.S. District Courts, the U.S.Courts of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court whosedecisions will have a direct impact on Indian tribes andIndian people.

The Project continues to seek opportunities to educatethe federal judiciary and to provide opportunities for federal judges to meet with tribal judges. In December2007, Tribal leaders and attorneys from NARF and NCAIwere invited by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, to meet with over 30 active


The Preservation of Tribal Existence


appellate judges during their business meeting inPasadena, California. Building on that meeting, JudgeKozinski arranged for a meeting with Justice Kennedyduring the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in SunValley, Idaho, in July 2008. Separately, invitations wereextended to Justices Kennedy and Alito and Chief JusticeRoberts to visit Indian country in 2009 and tour tribalcourt systems as did Justices Breyer and O’Connor in2001. The Justices declined the invitations, but indicatedan ongoing interest in learning more about tribal law andtribal judicial systems.

The Project is seeking to establish a network of tribaland federal judges through active participation at judicialconferences to further educate the federal judiciary aboutIndian law and tribal sovereignty. In addition, we continueto work with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee toensure that all nominees are asked about their experiencewith Indian tribes and their understanding of federalIndian law during confirmation proceedings. The Projectis developing a primer on Indian tribes and federal Indianlaw for distribution to all newly appointed members of the federal judiciary who have Indian tribes in theirjurisdiction.

Federal Recognition of Tribal StatusThe second category of NARF’s work under this priority

is federal recognition of tribal status. NARF currently represents Indian communities who have survived intactas identifiable Indian tribes but who are not federally recognized. Tribal existence does not depend on federalrecognition, but recognition is necessary for a govern-ment-to-government relationship and the receipt ofmany federal services.

In 1998, NARF filed a petition for federal recognition onbehalf of the Shinnecock Indian Nation in Southampton,New York. The BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) finallyplaced Shinnecock on the Active consideration list in2008. This is a milestone for the Nation after many yearsof waiting. Shinnecock appears to be well on its way toachieving federal recognition. NARF has also assisted theLittle Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana. Aftermany delays, in 2000 the BIA published a preliminary

finding in favor of recognition. The Office of FederalAcknowledgment (OFA) began active consideration of theTribe’s new material in 2007 and conducted a three weeksite visit. OFA had previously indicated it would reach afinal determination on the Tribe’s petition by the end ofcalendar 2007. This deadline was not met. Then the datemoved to the end of July 2008, then to January 2009, andnow to July 2009. In addition, in 2007 MontanaCongressman Danny Rehberg, Senator Max Baucus, andJon Lester introduced federal legislation to grant theLittle Shell Tribe the recognition they have long beendenied. NARF continues to track and monitor the legislation.

Finally, NARF has been working with the PamunkeyTribe in Virginia to prepare the necessary historical, legal,and anthropological documentation to support a petitionfor federal acknowledgment. The petition is nearing com-pletion and is expected to be filed in 2009 with OFA.NARF has also continued representation of the MashpeeWampanoag Tribe who received federal recognition in2007. Since that time, NARF has devoted its time to matters related to tribal governance and internationalrepatriation.

Environmental Law and Policy InitiativeThe third category of NARF’s work under this priority is

the environmental law and policy initiative. NARF hasplayed a key role in the implementation of federal environmental law and policy that recognizes tribal


Impact Assessment 2004 (ACIA), indigenous peoples arereporting that sea ice is declining, and its quality andtiming are changing, with important negative repercus-sions for marine hunters. Others are reporting thatsalmon are diseased and cannot be dried for winter food.There is widespread concern about caribou habitat dimin-ishing as larger vegetation moves northward. Because ofthese and other dramatic changes, traditional knowledgeis jeopardized, as are cultural structures and the nutritional needs of Alaska’s indigenous peoples. To beginaddressing this issue, NARF successfully gathered 162Tribal and Corporate Resolutions in 2007 calling onCongress and the Executive Office to adopt legislationthat would reduce carbon emissions. The resolutionswere carried to Washington, D.C. by tribal leaders andpresented to the Alaska Delegation on Climate Change.

In addition, a law suit was filed by NARF and private co-counsel in February 2008 – Native Village of Kivalinav. ExxonMobil, et al. The Native Village of Kivalina, whichis a federally recognized Indian Tribe, and the City ofKivalina, which is an Alaskan municipality, filed suit ontheir own behalf and on behalf of all tribal membersagainst defendants ExxonMobil Corp., Peabody EnergyCorp., Southern Company, American Electric Power Co.,Duke Energy Co, Chevron Corp., and Shell Oil Co.,among others. In total there are nine oil company defen-dants, fourteen electric power company defendants andone coal company defendant. The suit claims damagesdue to the defendant companies’ contributions to globalwarming and invokes the federal common law of publicnuisance. The suit also alleges a conspiracy by somedefendants to mislead the public regarding the causes andconsequences of global warming.

NARF continues work to protect the interests of tribes’in Congressional legislation. The Climate Security Act of2008 is the first serious attempt in the United States toaddress the issue of climate change. It would fundamen-tally change the way the economy of the United Statesworks, adapting a cap and trade system for carbon emissions. The bill provides for set asides for mitigationof the affects of climate change and adaptation to any


The Preservation of Tribal Existencegovernments as the primary regulators and enforcers offederal environmental laws on Indian lands.

A scientific consensus has emerged in recent decadesthat human activities are causing significant changes toour climate and environment. Among the documentedchanges are higher temperatures, rising sea levels, warming oceans and melting polar ice sheets. Climatechange is a global phenomenon and will affect everyoneunder even the most conservative scientific projections.

However, climate change will not affect everyone equally.Native peoples find themselves already at ground zero ina fight that will ultimately determine the survival of theirtribal nations. Native communities are exceptionally vulnerable to the effects of climate change and the devastating results have already begun to fall dispropor-tionately on tribes. Despite the fact that Native peopleshave historically left a negligible carbon footprint, theyare suffering and will suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change. Native peoples are often thefirst to see, and the first to feel changes in the naturalenvironment. Traditional tribal practices and relation-ships with the natural world form the spiritual, culturaland economic foundation for many Native Americannations that will be and, in some cases already are, threat-ened by climate change. Mother Earth is definitely in crisis and Native peoples knowledge and their intimateand direct relationships with our ecosystems point theway toward an urgent need for a paradigm shift andchange in lifestyle for all humanity.

In Alaska, NARF is now working on a cutting edge,multi-faceted global warming project. Global warming iswreaking havoc in Alaska. In recent years scientists havedocumented melting ocean ice, rising oceans, rising rivertemperatures, thawing permafrost, increased insect infes-tations, animals at risk and dying forests. Alaska Nativesare the people who rely most on Alaska’s ice, seas, marinemammals, fish and game for nutrition and customary andtraditional subsistence uses; they are thus experiencingthe adverse impacts of global warming most acutely.Virtually every aspect of traditional Alaska Native life isimpacted. As noted in the recently released Arctic Climate


effects. Tribes must compete for these funds. The bill inpresent form largely ignores the sovereign role whichtribes should play in dealing with this issue. The stakesare enormous and the players, generally huge businessesor well-established environmental groups, have very deeppockets. Neither side will look out for Native peoplesinterests. Native Peoples must weigh into this criticallegislative debate as the Act will be back before Congressafter the Presidential election this Fall andAdministration change in early 2009. NARF seeks to helptribes and Indigenous peoples to have a “seat at the table”in these discussions, not only in the formulation of theAct, but also to help to advocate for its passage. NARF willbe partnering with the National Tribal Environmental

Council (NTEC) to protect tribes’ interests inCongressional legislation. NTEC is a not-for-profit orga-nization comprised of 184 member tribes with a missionto enhance each tribe’s ability to protect, preserve andpromote the wise management of air, land, and water forthe benefit of current and future generations.

The issues posed by climate change are worldwide andrequire Indigenous peoples around the world to worktogether to protect their common interests. The ClimateSecurity Act of 2008 has specific provisions which wouldaffect Indigenous peoples outside the United States. In addition, the talks for the post Kyoto accords are set tobegin and numerous U.N. agencies deal with climatechange and need Indigenous input. Also, the Conventionof Biological Diversity specifically provides for participa-tion by Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples musthave a presence to protect their interests at the interna-tional level. As the saying goes – “If you are not at thetable, you are on the menu.” NARF will use all the meansat its disposal to ensure that Indigenous peoples are givena voice in these important national and international legislative and policy debates regarding climate change.

NARF and the Oglala Sioux Tribe (OST) have beenworking on the delivery of a safe, reliable and adequatesource of municipal, industrial and rural water supplythrough the federally authorized and funded Mni WiconiProject. A critical element of the delivery of a safe sourceof drinking water to the OST is to ensure the security ofthe pipeline that distributes the water to the users. NARFhas assisted the OST Department of Water Maintenanceand Conservation in fulfilling its responsibility to securethe pipeline through the development and adoption of theOST Pipeline Security Ordinance. The Department ofWater Maintenance and Conservation is now faced withenforcement of the Ordinance against individuals who donot accept that they cannot waste the water providedthrough the Mni Wiconi Distribution System on theOST’s Reservation. NARF is assisting the Departmentwith the development of the necessary forms and protocols to accomplish enforcement of this criticallyimportant law of the Tribe. ❂


Over time, Indian tribes have experienced a steadydiminishment of their land base to a mere two percent ofits original size. An adequate land base and control overnatural resources are central components of economicself-sufficiency and self-determination, and as such, arevital to the very existence of tribes. Therefore, protectionof tribal natural resources is a high priority at NARF.

Protection of Indian LandsWithout a sufficient land base, tribal existence is

difficult to maintain. Thus NARF helps tribes establishownership and control over lands which are rightfullytheirs.

Since 1981, NARF has represented the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas in their quest to secure compensation for the loss of use of millions of acres offertile forest land they once occupied in southeast Texas.In 2002, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor ofthe Tribe in their breach-of-trust claim against the UnitedStates, holding the government liable for the Tribe’s lossof use of over 2.85 million acres of land between 1845 and1954. The Court also ruled that 5.5 million acres of

aboriginal title has never been extinguished. Negotiatorsfor the U.S. and Tribe reached an agreement on theamount of damages for the loss of land - $270 million-and the Court recommended the agreement to Congressin 2002. NARF continues to work with other privateattorneys to settle the Tribe’s damages claim.

NARF represents the Pottawatomi Nation of Canada, aband of descendants from the Historic PottawatomiNation, which from 1795 to 1833 signed a series oftreaties with the United States. While the AmericanPottawatomi bands recovered the payment of annuities inthe Indian Claims Commission (ICC), the CanadianPottawatomi members could not bring a claim in the ICC.In 1993, NARF brought suit on behalf of the CanadianPottawatomi in the Court of Federal Claims, and the parties reached an agreement in principle which wasapproved by the Court in 2000 and recommended toCongress in 2001. In 2002, Senator Inouye introduced abill “For the Relief of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canadafor Settlement of Certain Claims Against the UnitedStates.” The bill was reintroduced by Senator Inouye in2003, was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee,


The Protection of Tribal Natural Resources


has not been diminished and the State therefore lacksjurisdiction. Although the district court initially dis-missed the petition, it was appealed and the Court ofAppeals for the Tenth Circuit recently remanded the matter to the district court with instructions to reconsideran amended petition. The petition challenges Mr. Yellowbear’s incarceration by the State of Wyomingresulting from his conviction in state court on the basisthat the state had no jurisdiction over the crime becauseit took place within the undiminished boundaries of thereservation, and was therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.

In addition, the Northern Arapaho Tribe has filed a caseagainst state and county employees challenging the collection of certain taxes, which may implicate theboundary question The Eastern Shoshone and NorthernArapaho Tribes are also cooperating in an application tothe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for delegationof “treatment in the same manner as a state” in theadministration of certain Clean Air Act authorities whichwill require determination of the boundary. Finally, theEastern Shoshone Tribe is working with local and stategovernments to seek common grounds for agreement ona range of shared interests. In sum, NARF is working withthe Tribe's Attorney General and the Shoshone BusinessCouncil on a variety of fronts to secure vindication of thereservation boundaries.


but did not pass in 2004. In January 2007, SenatorInouye introduced Senate Bill No. 56 in the 110thCongress which has been referred to the Senate JudiciaryCommittee. NARF met with staff for Chairman Leahy andSenator Schumer and are optimistic that the bill willmove through Committee this session. On the Houseside, we continue working with Congressman Kildee whohas agreed to introduce a House companion bill.

NARF represents the Native Village of Tuluksak inAlaska in their quest to have the land owned by the Villagecorporation transferred in fee simple to the Village tribalcouncil. The Department of the Interior would then bepetitioned to place the land into trust on behalf of theVillage. Currently tribes in Alaska are not permitted toseek having their lands placed into trust as can tribes inthe “Lower 48.” The Native Village of Tuluksak has decidedto pursue litigation to establish the right of Alaska Tribesto petition Interior to place lands in trust. The litigationwas filed in 2006 in the federal court in the District ofColumbia. Federal defendants moved to transfer venue tothe District of Alaska, but in 2007 Judge Robertsondenied the motion, thus keeping the case in Washington,D.C. where it belongs. The government filed its answer in2007 and then certified the administrative record. The State of Alaska has moved to intervene, and the plain-tiffs opposed, but the court did grant their motion inOctober 2008.

NARF has been retained by the Eastern Shoshone Tribeof the Wind River Indian Reservation to analyze the legalimplications of a Surplus Land Act of March 3, 1905 as itmay have affected the boundaries of the reservation. TheWyoming Supreme Court recently ruled that the reserva-tion boundaries had been diminished when it upheld theconviction of a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe fora crime committed within the City of Riverton, Wyoming.Riverton is within the original boundaries of the reserva-tion as they existed immediately prior to the 1905Surplus Land Act. Separately, however, the defendant inthat case, Andrew Yellowbear, filed a petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for Wyomingseeking a ruling from the federal courts that the boundary

NARF continues to do legal work for the HualapaiIndian Tribe of Arizona. The Tribe is located on the southrim of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and claims a boundarythat runs to the center of the Colorado River. The Tribeasked that NARF provide an interpretation of key provi-sions of their Constitution concerning the managementand development of the Tribe’s natural resources. In addition, the Tribe owns the Cholla Canyon Ranch nearWikiup, Arizona. The Ranch was gifted to the Tribe by itsowners and is presently being operated as a palm treeplantation. NARF is also assisting the Tribe in the transferof the Cholla Canyon Ranch lands from fee status to be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe.

Water RightsThe culture and way of life of many indigenous peoples

are inextricably tied to their aboriginal habitat. For thosetribes that still maintain traditional ties to the naturalworld, suitable habitat is required in order to exercisetheir treaty-protected hunting, fishing, gathering, andtrapping rights and to sustain their relationships with theanimals, plants, and fish that comprise their aboriginalhabitats.

Establishing tribal rights to the use of water in the aridwest continues to be a major NARF priority. The goal ofNARF’s Indian water rights work is to secure allocationsof water for present and future needs for four Indiantribes represented by NARF and other western tribes gen-erally. Under the precedent established by the SupremeCourt in 1908 in Winters v. United States and confirmedin 1963 in Arizona v. California, Indian tribes are entitledunder federal law to sufficient water for present andfuture needs, with a priority date at least as early as theestablishment of their reservations. These tribal reservedwater rights are superior to all state-recognized waterrights created after the tribal priority date. Such a datewill in most cases give tribes valuable senior water rightsin the water-short west. Unfortunately, many tribes havenot utilized their reserved water rights and most of theserights are unadjudicated or unquantified. The major need

in each case is to define or quantify the amount of waterto which each tribe is entitled through litigation or out-of-court negotiated settlements. Tribes are generally ableto claim water for any purpose which enables the Tribe’sreservation to serve as a permanent homeland.

NARF represents the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho in itswater rights claim in the Snake River Basin Adjudication(SRBA). The Nez Perce Tribe is located in northern Idahonear the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater Rivers.The Nez Perce claims dispute has been the biggest out-standing dispute in the SRBA, which includes a legalinventory of about 180,000 water rights claims in 38 ofIdaho’s 44 counties. In early 2005, the Nez Perce TribalExecutive Committee (NPTEC) accepted the final terms




of the water rights claims in the State of Idaho’s SnakeRiver Basin Adjudication. The Nez Perce Tribe has agreedto: 50,000 acre feet of water decreed to the Tribe for on-reservation uses; instream flows decreed on almost 200Tribal priority streams to be held by the State of Idaho;600 springs claims decreed on about 6 million acres ofFederal land in the Tribe’s 1863 ceded area; over 11,000acres of on-reservation Bureau of Land Management landtransferred to the Tribe in trust; and, $96 million in threeseparate funds, for Tribal drinking water and sewer projects,water development projects, in addition to various Tribalprojects including cultural preservation and fishery habitatimprovements. Congress enacted the Snake RiverSettlement Act of 2004 and President Bush signed it intolaw the same year. The Governor signed the approval legislation in 2005. The approval by NPTEC representedthe final sign-off by the three sovereigns. This is a majoraccomplishment for the Nez Perce Tribe and its members.This settlement represents the merging of traditionalIndian water rights settlement elements with other majorenvironmental issues confronting all of the people ofIdaho. It could well be looked at by other states and tribesand federal land management agencies in the west seekingto sort out Indian water claims and other challenges presented by the federal Endangered Species Act and theClean Water Act. We continue to work with the Tribe onthe federal appropriations process. Work is complete on 2008 appropriations, and is underway on FY 2009appropriations.

NARF represents the Klamath Tribes of Oregon whohold reserved water rights in the Klamath River Basin tosupport their treaty hunting, fishing and gatheringrights, as well as to satisfy the agricultural purposes of theKlamath Reservation. NARF filed about 150 contests onbehalf of the Tribes against unsubstantiated private waterright claims and has actively prosecuted them for the pastfour years. During 2004 and 2005, in one of the largestcontests, a four-week trial was held concerning waterrights for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project.A ruling on the merits upheld NARF’s position that theUnited States, not private water users or irrigation

districts, owns the water rights for the enormousKlamath Irrigation Project. Accordingly, the claims ofthe water users and the districts were denied, and theholding ensures that the Klamath Project will continue tobe operated pursuant to the Endangered Species Act andtribal trust obligations. Exceptions to this order werebriefed in 2007, with NARF filing three briefs and relatedpapers on behalf of the Tribes. In 2007, NARF filed anamicus curiae brief in Klamath Irrigation District, et al.v. United States now on appeal before the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit, which raises the sameissues in Case 003, in order to protect the favorable judg-ment in both Case 003 and in the Court of FederalClaims.

In 2005 and 2006, adjudication of the Tribes’ waterrights claims began in earnest. Sixty-four briefs were filedby the parties in eight tribal cases on legal issues definingthe nature of the tribal water rights claims and variousdefenses against those water rights. Oral argument washeld and the Alternative Law Judge (ALJ) entered Ordersin all eight cases in 2006 that upheld the Tribes’ legalposition in a sweeping set of victories. The ALJ held thatthe Tribes are entitled to a sufficient amount of water fora healthy habitat and productive fishery. The eight tribalcases are in the final discovery stages culminating withdepositions. Following discovery the Tribes will then proceed with written testimony, which will extend intohearings later in 2009.

NARF represents the Tule River Indian Tribe ofCalifornia in on-going negotiations to settle the Tribe’sclaims to reserved water rights on its Reservation. Afterlegal and technical analyses of its water rights claims, theTribe decided to pursue a negotiated settlement of itswater rights claims before engaging in litigation. Afteralmost 30 years of advocacy work, the Tule River IndianTribe has successfully settled its water rights. In 2007 theTribe signed a Settlement Agreement with water users onthe South Fork Tule River of California. The SettlementAgreement secures a domestic, municipal, industrial, andcommercial water supply for the Tribe. The Tribe isengaged in preparing federal legislation that will ratify


the Settlement Agreement and authorize appropriationsto develop the water rights through the creation of waterinfrastructure and reservoirs on the Tule Reservation. Inaddition, HR 2535 was introduced by California represen-tative Damon Nunez on behalf of the Tribe. The bill authorizes a feasibility study to evaluate theappropriate location of a reservoir on the Reservation tostore the Tribe’s water rights. Most recently, HR 2535 waspassed out of the House Committee on Natural Resourcesand is awaiting a vote by the House.

In 2006, the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas filed a federallawsuit in U.S. District Court in an effort to enforceexpress promises made to the Tribe to build the PlumCreek Reservoir Project in the Upper Delaware and tribu-taries watershed. The Nemaha-Brown Watershed JointBoard # 7, the Natural Resources Conservation Service ofthe U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the State ofKansas made these promises to the Tribe over a decadeago. In the intervening years these parties have beenactively developing the water resources of the watershed,resulting in the near depletion of the Tribe’s senior federalwater rights in the drainage.

The water quality on the reservation is so poor it isharmful to human health and unsuitable for human consumption according to the EPA. The water supply is inviolation of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. As aresult the Kickapoo people are unable to safely drink,bathe or cook with tap water. The Plum Creek ReservoirProject is the most cost-effective and reliable means bywhich the Tribe can free its members from the dire livingconditions forced upon them by their unreliable and dangerous water supply.

A thirty-year era of unreliable water supplies on theKickapoo Reservation located in Brown County, Kansashas disabled the Kickapoo Tribe from providing basicmunicipal services necessary to protect its residents fromillness, fire, and unsanitary living conditions. There is notenough water on the reservation to provide basic munic-ipal services to the community. The Tribe is unable toprovide local schools with safe and reliable running waterand the Fire Department cannot provide adequate fire

protection due to the water shortage.In 2007, the parties expressed an interest in taking a

break from the litigation track to explore mutual benefitsfrom settlement. The United States, the State and thelocal watershed district all concede the existence of theTribe’s senior Winters water rights; the real issue ulti-mately will be the amount of water to satisfy the Tribe’sneeds, and the source or sources of those rights. Overall,progress has been slow but steady and negotiationsextended throughout 2008. The Tribe and the U.S. are also discussing funding to quantify the Tribe’s water rights.

Protection of Hunting and Fishing Rights in AlaskaThe subsistence way of life is essential for the physical

and cultural survival of Alaska Natives. As important asNative hunting and fishing rights are to Alaska Natives’physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence,the State of Alaska has been and continues to be reluctantto recognize the importance of the subsistence way of life.

In 2004 in the case Eyak, Tatitlek, Nanwalek, Chenega,Port Graham v. Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit en bancremanded for determination of whether the tribes canestablish aboriginal rights in their traditional-use areas.The District Court ordered parties (the plaintiff ChugachTribes are represented by NARF) to refile Motions forSummary Judgment. The federal government moved forsummary judgment (the Chugach did not) but the courtdenied the motion a mere five days after the oral argu-ment. A two-week trial was conducted in the second halfof August 2008 and the parties are currently engaged inpost-trial briefing. A decision is expected within six totwelve months. If successful, the five tribes will regainthe right to hunt and fish in their traditional areas in theGulf of Alaska federal waters.

In 2005, the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit in theDistrict of Columbia challenging the final rule imple-menting the mandate in the prior subsistence case, Johnv. United States. This prior NARF case established thatthe United States must protect subsistence uses of




fisheries in navigable waters where the United States pos-sesses a reserved water right. The State challenged theSecretaries’ implementation of the mandate by arguingthat the reserved waters doctrine requires a quantifica-tion of waters necessary to fulfill specific purposes. AlaskaNative subsistence user Katie John filed a motion for limited intervention for purposes of filing a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party. TheUnited States filed a motion to transfer venue to Alaska.The court entered an Order transferring the case to theDistrict of Alaska. The case was then consolidated withJohn v. Norton filed by Katie John.

Katie John had filed John v. Norton in the District ofAlaska challenging the Secretaries’ final rule implementingthe prior Katie John mandate as being too restrictive inits scope. Katie John’s complaint alleges that theSecretaries should have included Alaska Native allotments as public lands and further that the federalgovernment’s interest in water extends upstream anddownstream from the Conservation Units establishedunder the Alaska National Interest Lands ConservationAct. The two cases have now been consolidated. In 2007,the district court entered an order upholding the agency’srule-making process identifying navigable waters inAlaska that fall within federal jurisdiction for purposes ofTitle VIII’s subsistence priority.

In Ahtna Tene Nene’ Subsistence Committee v. AlaskaBoard of Game the suit was brought on behalf of tribalorganizations and communities who live a subsistenceway of life to overturn a series of regulations adopted bythe Alaska Board of Game in 2007. The regulationsseverely restrict, and in some cases eliminate, the plain-tiffs’ subsistence uses of moose and caribou. Plaintiffssought a preliminary injunction in state court requestingthat the court enjoin the State from implementing these regulations for the fall hunt.

In 2007, the court found that plaintiffs had shown thatthey satisfied the “balance of hardships” standard forgranting preliminary injunction by raising serious andsubstantial questions going to the merits of the case andby demonstrating that the balance of hardships tip

sharply in their favor. The State of Alaska has decided notto seek review of the court’s grant of preliminary relief.In April 2008, a decision was rendered granting plaintiffsrelief in part and denying it in part. Ahtna is preparing toappeal the part of the opinion denied relief.

In State v. Dementieff in 2006, the State of Alaskabrought suit challenging the Federal Subsistence Board’scustomary and traditional use finding for subsistenceuses of moose by members of the Chistochina Tribe. Apositive customary and traditional use finding entitlesresidents of a specific community to the subsistence pri-ority under Title VIII of the Alaska National InterestLands Conservation Act. Chistochina was granted intervention in this action to protect its customary andtraditional use status for moose.

In 2007, the district court entered an Order in favor ofdefendant United States and Chistochina against theState and upholding the Federal Subsistence Boards customary and traditional use finding for subsistenceuses of moose by members of the Chistochina Tribe. TheState appealed its loss, but the decision in favor of thesubsistence priority was upheld by the Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals in September 2008. ❂


The Promotion of Human RightsAlthough basic human rights are considered a universal

and inalienable entitlement, Native Americans face anongoing threat of having their rights undermined by theUnited States government, states, and others who seek tolimit these rights. NARF strives to enforce and strengthenlaws which are designed to protect the rights of NativeAmericans to practice their traditional religion, to usetheir own language, and to enjoy their culture. NARFalso works with Tribes to improve education for andensure the welfare of their children. In the internationalarena, NARF is active in efforts to negotiate declarationson the rights of indigenous peoples.

Religious FreedomBecause religion is the foundation that holds Native

communities and cultures together, religious freedom isa NARF priority issue. Legal work continues on a number of Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation (NAGPRA) implementation issues. First,NARF offered testimony in 2004 and 2005 before theSenate Committee on Indian Affairs at OversightHearings regarding NAGPRA. NARF supports legislationto amend NAGPRA to correct problems created by theCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in theBonnichsen case, which was introduced in 2007 as S.2087 and marked-up by the Senate Indian AffairsCommittee. Second, NARF represents the Pawnee Nationin the reburial of about 800 human remains in the Stateof Nebraska. This reburial entails facilitation of a transferof private land located within the heart of the Pawneehomeland to the Nation for use as a reburial and culturalsite. The Nebraska Attorney General issued an opinion in2006 clarifying that reburials may be done on private landin Nebraska. In 2007, the historic conveyance of 60 acresof land took place with the formal transfer of the deed bylandowners Roger and Linda Welsch during a tribal ceremony held in their honor. The reburial on that landoccurred later in 2007. Third, NARF continues to monitorand participate in litigation affecting the implementationof NAGPRA. In 2005 it filed an amicus brief in the SpiritCave litigation supporting a tribal repatriation claim

against the BLM in Fallon-Piaute Shoshone Indian Tribev. United States. The district court upheld the Tribe’s contentions and remanded the matter back to BLM.However, BLM has appealed the decision to the Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In November 2008, the ACLU of Louisiana and theNative American Rights Fund were successful in theirrepresentation of a Native American child attending public school in St. Tammany Parish. The child is a five-year-old Native American who wears his hair in a neatbraid down his back. The family’s religion, like that ofmany Native Americans, includes a belief that hair shouldnot be cut, except as a symbol of mourning upon thedeath of a loved one. The principal at the child’s elemen-tary school advised his mother that he would be requiredto cut his hair to continue to attend school even thoughto do so would violate his family’s religion.

The ACLU and NARF represented the child and hismother in their fight to stand up for the rights of allAmericans to exercise their religion, and to express them-selves culturally. The principal rejected the family’srequest for an exemption to the dress code. The familyappealed, but the Superintendent of Schools ruled thatthe child could only attend school if he wore his hair in abun. Because doing so still suggests that the child musthide his religious beliefs, the family appealed that



decision to the St. Tammany Parish School Board. TheSuperintendent later reversed her previous decision, andhas decided to allow the child to attend school and con-tinue to wear his hair in the single neat braid with whichhe began the school year, and which is consistent with hisreligious principles.

NARF and the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs(“CCIA”) were first asked in 2003 to become involved inthe City of Boulder’s process to decide whether to site twofacilities – a biosolids composting facility and a fire training center – at Valmont Butte, located just east ofthe City. In the midst of these legal processes, curiousphenomena began to unfold. Given a voice and means ofexpression by NARF and CCIA’s involvement, the NativeAmerican community came forward with powerful evidence that (1) the Butte is a place of significant prehistoric connections to Native peoples who inhabitedBoulder Valley long before Euro American settlers cameinto the area in the 19th Century; and (2) the Butte is aplace of contemporary religious importance to manyIndian people in the metropolitan Denver area, as well asto Indian people of Ute, Arapaho and Cheyenne descentwho reside on reservations in Oklahoma, Wyoming andsouthwest Colorado. Important spirit voices are believedto reside in and around the Butte itself and it is the locusof an active sweat lodge being utilized by several Indianreligious leaders. In 2005, the City Council heard andrespected the wishes of the Indian Community by rejectingthe planning staff recommendations to locate the com-posting and fire training facilities on the Butte property.NARF is working with the CCIA, the local Indian com-munity in the Denver metropolitan area, the interestedtribes, and the residents of the Valmont Butte area to identify a means of acquiring the property from the City.

Civil and Cultural RightsNARF, along with co-counsel American Civil Liberties

Union, took the enormous step of filing the first VRASection 203 case on behalf of Alaska Natives. The lawsuit,called Nick v. Bethel, alleges that Alaska (through itsagents the Lieutenant Governor and the Division of

Elections, among others) have violated the VRA by failingto provide language assistance to the thousands of Yupìkspeaking voters in the Bethel Census Area. The first claimis under the VRA’s Section 203, which requires that jurisdictions covered by the Act provide oral and writtenassistance sufficient to enable the voter to cast a meaningful ballot.

While the languages covered (meaning those for whichthe State has to provide assistance) varies statewide tocorrespond to the number of people who speak that language, in the Bethel Census Area, the covered lan-guage is Yupìk. However, as the complaint alleges, thereis little to no oral language assistance provided andabsolutely no written assistance provided to the Yupìkvoter. The second claim is under Section 208 of the VRAwhich provides that a voter who needs help reading andwriting may bring anyone they like into the voting boothto help them cast a ballot. The complaint was filed in2007 and in July 2008 the U.S. District Court issued aPreliminary Injunction ordering the State to providecomprehensive language assistance in time for theAugust primary and November general elections. Thisrelief includes providing written ballots in the Yupìk language, publicizing all election notices and informationin Yupìk, and the creation of a new statewide position tooversee Native language assistance. Additionally, theState must report to the Court before and after each election that they have taken these steps.

From the embryonic days of our Nation, Indian tribeshave long struggled against the assimilationist policiesinstituted by the United States which sought to destroytribal cultures by removing Native American childrenfrom their tribes and families. As an example, the federalgovernment failed to protect Indian children from mis-guided and insensitive child welfare practices by statehuman service agencies, which resulted in the unwar-ranted removal of Indian children from their families andtribes and placement of those children in non-Indianhomes. Statistical and anecdotal information show thatIndian children who grow up in non-Indian settingsbecome spiritual and cultural orphans. They do not


continued on page 24

Major Activities - 2008 NARF Case Map



NEW MEXICO• Mescalero Apache Tribe – Tribal Trust Fund

NEW YORK• Shinnecock Indian Nation – Recognition

NORTH DAKOTA• Fort Berthold Reservation – Water Rights

• Turtle Mountain Reservation – Tribal Trust Fund

OKLAHOMA• Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes – Tribal Trust Fund

• Pawnee Nation – Education, NAGPRA & Tribal Trust Fund

• Sac & Fox Nations – Tribal Trust Fund

OREGON• Klamath Tribes – Water Rights

& Tribal Trust Fund

SOUTH DAKOTA• Lower Brule Sioux Tribe – Trust Lands

• Oglala Sioux Tribe – Environmental

TEXAS• Alabama-Coushatta Tribe – Land Claim

VIRGINIA• Pamunkey Tribe – Recognition

WASHINGTON• Yakama Nation – Tribal Trust Funds

WASHINGTON, D.C.NARF WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE• Cobell v. Norton & Tribal Supreme

Court Project

• Harjo et al v. Washington Redskin Football –Cultural Rights

WYOMING• Eastern Shoshone Tribe – Land Issue

CANADA• Northern Lakes Pottawatomi Nation – Land

Claim

INTERNATIONAL• Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples – United Nations & Organization ofAmerican States

ALASKANARF ANCHORAGE OFFICE• Chistochina Tribe – Subsistence

• Curing v. Alaska – ICWA

• Kaltag Tribe – ICWA

• Katie John v. Norton – Subsistence

• Global Warming Project

• Native Villages of Eyak, Tatitlek,Chenega, Nanwalek, and Port Graham– Subsistence & Aboriginal Title

• Gwich’in Steering Committee –Environmental/Subsistence

• Native Village of Nulato - ICWA

• Ninilchick Tribe – Subsistence

• Native Village of Tuluksak – Trust Lands

• Native Village of Venetie - Subsistence

• Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes – TribalTrust Funds

• Voting Rights Act Suit

ARIZONA• Hualapai Tribe – Boundary Issue

CALIFORNIA• Tule River Tribe – Water,

Tribal Trust Funds

• Yurok Tribe – Tribal Trust Funds

COLORADONARF HEADQUARTERSBOULDER, COLORADO• ICWA Site

• TEDNA Headquarters

• Valmont Butte – Sacred Site Issue

IDAHO• Nez Perce Tribe – Water Rights,

Tribal Trust Funds

KANSAS• Kickapoo Tribe – Water Rights

MINNESOTA• White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians

– Tribal Trust Fund

MONTANA• Chippewa-Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boys

Reservation – Tribal Trust Fund

• Little Shell Tribe – Recognition &Tribal Trust Fund

NEBRASKA• Santee Sioux Tribe – Tribal Trust Fund


entirely fit into the culture in which they are raised andyearn throughout their lives for the family and tribal cul-ture denied them as children. Many Native childrenraised in non-Native homes experience identity problems,drug addiction, alcoholism, incarceration and, most disturbing, suicide.

In order to address these problems facing tribes as aresult of the loss of their children, the Indian ChildWelfare Act (ICWA) was enacted in 1978. It establishedminimum federal jurisdictional, procedural and substan-tive standards aimed to achieve the dual purposes of protecting the right of an Indian child to live with anIndian family and to stabilize and foster continued tribal

existence. Since that time, there has been misinterpreta-tions and in some cases, outright refusal to follow theintent of the law by state agencies and courts.

In 2005, the Villages of Tanana, Nulato, Akiak, Kalskag,Lower Kalskag and Kenaitze along with Theresa and Dan

Schwietert filed a complaint against the State of Alaska,Attorney General Greg Renkes, and various state agencieschallenging the policy adopted by the Attorney General ofAlaska that state courts have exclusive jurisdiction overchild custody proceedings involving Alaska Native children and Tribes in Alaska do not have concurrentjurisdiction to hear children’s cases unless the child’stribe has successfully petitioned the Department of theInterior to reassume exclusive or concurrent jurisdictionunder ICWA, or a state superior court has transferredjurisdiction of the child’s case to a tribal court in accordance with ICWA.

In 2007, Judge Tan issued an opinion in the Tribe’sfavor rejecting all of the State’s arguments. Judge Tanheld that Alaska Tribes possess inherent power to adjudi-cate proceedings involving member children. The Tribeshave moved for injunctive relief to prohibit the state andits agency’s from denying full faith and credit to tribalcourt decrees pending appeal to the Alaska SupremeCourt. The State has moved for entry of final judgmentwith a stay of the superior court ruling while the casegoes up on appeal. At oral argument in 2007 Judge Taninstructed plaintiffs to submit their final judgment withrequested permanent relief by January 2008. The courtentered final judgment in favor of the tribal plaintiffs inAugust 2008.

In addition, NARF also filed and won a federal lawsuit inAlaska affirming ICWA’s full faith and credit clause. TheKaltag Tribe had completed an adoption in tribal courtand had applied for a new birth certificate, but the Staterefused to issue one on the grounds that the Tribe had notpetitioned for reassumption of jurisdiction under ICWA.This argument assumes that a Tribe does not have inherentjurisdiction to adjudicate adoptions of its own tribalmembers. The Tribe and the parents (two individualKaltag tribal members) brought suit against the State ofAlaska Department of Health and Social Services and theAlaska Bureau of Vital Statistics for denying full faith andcredit to a tribal adoption decree in violation of ICWA.The parents also have raised a violation of federal civilrights claim. Cross motions for summary judgment were


The Promotion of Human Rights


filed in 2007 and the court recently ruled in favor of theTribe on all claims, holding that their decision was entitled to full faith and credit under the ICWA. The Statehas moved to stay the judgment but lost that motion aswell, meaning the child in the adoption at issue willimmediately receive her birth certificate. The State hasappealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit but given the clear precedent, NARF is optimisticthe decision will be upheld on appeal.

People ex rel A.T. is an action to enforce the absoluteand unconditional right of tribes to intervene in child custody proceedings under ICWA. In the state ofColorado, an Indian child eligible for membership in theOsage Nation of Oklahoma was involved in a child custody proceeding as defined under ICWA. The OsageNation’s attorney filed a motion to intervene under ICWA.The motion was conditionally granted because the attorneyfor the Osage Nation was required to comply with thelocal counsel pro hac vice rule. Under this rule, an out-of-state counsel may participate in a Colorado court proceeding, but is required to associate with local counsel.As a result, the Osage Nation’s attorney was required toassociate with an attorney admitted to the Bar inColorado.

NARF was retained as local counsel and filed a motionto reconsider challenging the judge’s order. The motionfor reconsideration argued that the Osage Nation has anabsolute and unconditional federal right to intervene inthe proceeding and that the local pro hac vice require-ments are preempted by ICWA. Additionally, pro hac vicerequirements constitute a burden that would effectivelyforeclose many tribes from intervening in out-of-stateICWA cases because of, among other things, the cost ofhiring local counsel. NARF also argued that under ICWAa tribe has the right to appear by any representative of its choosing, including a representative that is not an attorney.

The court granted the motion to allow the OsageNation to appear by any representative of its choosing anddid not require the Nation’s attorney to associate withlocal counsel under the pro hac vice rules. It was a

success for the Nation to appear on its own behalf unencumbered by state law.

Government suppression of Native American language,religion, and culture was done historically through themachinery of government in order to forcibly assimilateNative Americans into mainstream society and to stampout their supposed inferior and backwards cultures. As aresult of widespread ethnocide which occurred during thenineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries, much ofthe Native American cultures was destroyed. Yet indige-nous peoples have struggled to preserve what littleremains; and their contributions of art and American heritage have caused growing appreciation in the UnitedStates and around the world in recent years, as seen inthe founding of the National Museum of the AmericanIndian and in the collections of world-class art museums.Yet, most Native American artists live on a subsistencelevel and there is no government support for Native artand culture, with surprisingly little assistance from theAmerican philanthropic community. There is a need forremedial measures, so NARF is participating in the birthand founding of a new national Native arts and culturefoundation that will establish and manage a multi-milliondollar permanent endowment from which monetaryawards can be made to Native American artists and thoselocal and regional organizations which currently supportNative art and culture. With assistance and leadershipfrom the Ford Foundation, a feasibility study demon-


strated the need and interest in such a national endow-ment in 2006. Significant initial funding was committedby the Ford Foundation and a founding board of directorswas formed. The articles of incorporation and by lawshave been approved and tax exempt status was awarded bythe IRS. Fundraising and organizational development forthe new foundation are underway and the new foundationwill be operational in 2009. Funds are now being transferred to the foundation in 2009 by major donors, asthe drive to create a multi-million dollar permanentendowment continues. The foundation has initiated a national search for a President and will open its officesin 2009.

This foundation holds enormous potential for assistingin the nation-wide tribal effort to preserve, sustain, andpass on our Native American art and cultures--includingendangered traditional art forms (and associated practices), as well as all forms of contemporary art suchas painting, sculpture, theater, dance, literature, film, andmusic. It is hoped that the foundation will become a powerful funding engine for the Native American culturalrenaissance which is sweeping America.

Also in the area of cultural rights, NARF filed an amicusbrief in the case of Harjo et al v. Washington RedskinFootball in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia on behalf of the National Congress of AmericanIndians, National Indian Educational Association,National Indian Youth Council, and the Tulsa IndianCoalition Against Racism in Sports in support of theIndian appellants. The brief argued that the federal trade-mark for the football team should be cancelled becausethe use of the “Redskin” mark is racially disparaging inviolation of federal trademark law. A decision was rendered in 2005 holding that the case may have beenprematurely dismissed as to the youngest Indian peti-tioner. The case was remanded to the district court toconsider whether the youngest Indian plaintiff, who wasa year old when the Redskins trademarks were first regis-tered, should be barred from bringing his claim becauseof delay in bringing the claim. NARF will continue tomonitor this important case on remand.

EducationFrom the founding of this country federal policy has

effectively stripped tribes of control over the education oftheir children. The disempowerment of tribes over edu-cation has been devastating. In most tribal communities,formal schooling is resented and rejected. NARF’s workin this area recently has been assisting in the develop-ment of the Tribal Education Departments NationalAssociation (TEDNA), a national, non-profit membershiporganization. TEDNA is growing in numbers and instrength. In July 2008, the U.S. Department's Office ofIndian Education invited TEDNA to present on tribal education departments’ capacity building at the Office’sPartnerships in Indian Education Conference. In January2008, TEDNA was awarded a grant from the privateIndian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) to assist in thedistribution of ILTF’s tribal land based school curricu-lum, and to develop professional development materialsto support the curriculum. TEDNA highlighted the ILTFcurriculum at its National TED Forum at the 2008National Congress of American Indians mid-year meetingin Reno, Nevada. In addition, TEDNA is working diligentlyto amend the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act toprovide TEDs with better access to tribal members’ publicschool records. TEDNA has continued its advocacy workin the area of Indian education by hosting variousNational TED forums, TED luncheons, TEDNA member-ship meetings and online Indian education seminars.Often in order to achieve its goal, NARF relies on avenuesother than litigation and TEDNA is a good example.TEDNA’s mission is capacity building toward more tribalcontrol over education.

International Recognition of Indigenous RightsThe development of international laws and standards to

protect the rights of indigenous peoples greatly benefitsNative American peoples. NARF and the NationalCongress of American Indians entered into an attorney-client relationship several years ago for the purpose ofworking in the international arena to protect indigenousrights. There have been recent, significant developments


The Promotion of Human Rights


in both the United Nations and Organization of AmericanStates. In 2006, in an historic vote, the new UnitedNations’ Human Rights Council overwhelminglyapproved the United Nations’ Draft Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples. The vote was thirty in favor,two opposed, and 12 abstaining. The only two countriesvoting against the Declaration were Russia and Canada.The Declaration approved was a combination of provi-sions agreed upon by indigenous peoples worldwide andstates, and a compromise text of those provisions uponwhich consensus had not been reached. This compro-mise text was developed by the Chair of the WorkingGroup on the Draft Declaration. Thus, while theDeclaration as approved was not totally a consensus document, it was endorsed by most indigenous peoplesworldwide as a major step forward in a process that hasbeen going on since the 1970s.

In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly over-whelmingly adopted the Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples. The vote was 143 in favor, 4 opposed,and 11 abstaining. The only votes in opposition wereCanada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.The new Prime Minister of Australia has indicatedAustralia will support the Declaration. This historic votecomes after 30 years of worldwide indigenous efforts.

The Declaration recognizes that indigenous peopleshave important collective human rights in a multitude ofareas, including self-determination, spirituality, andlands, territories and natural resources. The Declarationsets out minimum standards for the treatment of indigenous peoples and can serve as the basis for thedevelopment of customary international law. The seventhmeeting of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issuestook place at the UN in New York City in April and May2008. The special theme of the session was climatechange, a crucial issue for Indigenous Peoples worldwide.

The adoption of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples will have an import on theOrganization of American States (OAS) process. In recog-nition of this, the OAS held a “reflection” session inWashington, D.C. in 2007 to discuss that import. It was

agreed that the United Nations’ Declaration would beused as the foundation for the OAS document, in that allthe terms of the OAS document would be consistent with,or more favorable to, Indigenous rights than the UnitedNations document. The group further agreed the all theterms would be met through a consensus based decisionmaking process which includes the Indigenous representatives. The United States and Canada expressedtheir opposition to a document that would be consistentwith the United Nations Declaration, against which theyhad voted, but agreed they would not oppose the processmoving forward. The eleventh meeting of Negotiations in the Quest for Points of Consensus was held inWashington, D.C. in April 2008 and a follow up sessionwas held in December 2008 in Washington. NARF hascontinued to be involved in these important internationaldevelopments. ❂


The Accountability of GovernmentsContained within the unique trust relationship between

the United States and Indian nations is the inherent dutyfor all levels of government to recognize and responsiblyenforce the many laws and regulations applicable toIndian peoples and the trust duties to which those giverise. Because such laws impact virtually every aspect oftribal life, NARF maintains its involvement in the legalmatters pertaining to government accountability toNative Americans.

The Cobell v. Kempthorne case was filed in 1996 in theU.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by NARFand private co-counsel. It is brought on behalf of approx-imately 500,000 past and present individual Indian trustbeneficiaries. The individual Indian money account holders(plaintiffs) seek a full accounting of their trust assets forthe entire period that such assets have been held in trust– since 1887. Trustees, without exception, have a duty toprovide accurate and complete statement of accounts toeach beneficiary at regular intervals and a complete and

accurate accounting upon demand. Yet, the United Statesgovernment as trustee has never provided an accountingto individual Indian trust beneficiaries. It has never provided beneficiaries accurate and complete statementof accounts. In addition, the Cobell plaintiffs seek thattheir account balances be corrected, restated and, whereappropriate, distributed to the correct beneficiary in thecorrect amount. Finally, the Cobell plaintiffs seek reformof the trust management and accounting system.

The Cobell plaintiffs have prevailed on many of themerits of their claims throughout this litigation. InJanuary 2008, the court found that it was impossible forthe government to perform the requisite accounting dueto a lack of records and subsequently ordered a trial beheld to determine an alternative remedy to an accountingfor the plaintiffs. In the trial held this summer, plaintiffsrequested the court to order the government to restore$47 billion to the accounts of which $3 billion were fundscollected but never put into the accounts and $44 billion



of which was the benefit that the government received bywithholding these funds, using them to finance thenational debt and not having to borrow and pay intereston the borrowed funds over a long period of time. InAugust 2008, the court held that the plaintiffs were onlyentitled to $455,600,000 which the court determined thegovernment had collected but not put into the accounts.The court rejected any recovery for any benefit the gov-ernment received by withholding payment of the$455,600,000. The plaintiffs have appealed this decision.NARF has not been active in the case pending conflicts ofinterest checks with its tribal clients following its filing ofthe Nez Perce v. Kempthorne tribal trust funds classaction case in 2006.

In a separate U.S. Court of Federal Claims action, NARFrepresents the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa inNorth Dakota, the Chippewa-Cree of the Rocky BoysReservation in Montana, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewain Montana, and the White Earth Band of MinnesotaChippewa Indians against the United States for damagesfor misaccounting, misinvestment, and mismanagementof the Pembina Judgment Fund, a $50 million trust fundthat the tribes were awarded beginning in 1964. In 2006,the Court rejected four major arguments by the UnitedStates to get the case dismissed or substantially limited,and ruled that the case can go forward to determinewhether the United States breached its trust responsibilities.

In 2007, the Court, with the agreement of the parties,ordered the first two temporal phases (1964 - September1992) of the transactional claims and investment claimsto be resolved through alternative dispute resolution(ADR) proceedings before a Settlement Judge of theCourt. In 2008, the third temporal phase (October 1992 -December 1995) was also assigned to ADR proceedings.Formal discovery is being conducted on the fourth tem-poral phase (January 1996 - Present) of the Tribes’ claims.

NARF represents twelve named plaintiffs – the NezPerce Tribe; the Mescalero Apache Tribe; the Tule RiverIndian Tribe; the Hualapai Tribe; the Yakama Nation; theKlamath Tribes; the Yurok Tribe; the Cheyenne-ArapahoTribe; the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; the Sac and FoxNation; the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska; and, theTlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska – in an actionfiled in 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District ofColumbia. The action seeks full and complete accountingsof tribal (as opposed to individual) trust funds, whichnever have been provided by the federal governmentwhich is the trustee for the funds.

The action also seeks a court order declaring that theArthur Andersen reports prepared under a governmentcontract and provided to tribes in the 1990s are not fulland complete trust fund accountings. The action was filedas a class action to protect the rights of all tribes that donot file their own actions and that choose to remain in


the class. Plaintiffs moved for class certification in June2008 and the government opposed the motion. In July2008 the Court indicated that, in recognition of the sovereignty of tribes, it was not inclined to grant classcertification. The Court, however, suggested that joindermight be a more appropriate procedural means ofaddressing the addition of other tribes that want to jointhe action. In August 2008 Plaintiffs moved for leave tosend notice to members of the putative class of an oppor-

tunity for tribes that choose to do so to join the action.The government agreed that notice was appropriate butnot that tribes should have a reasonable opportunity tojoin. In October 2008 the Court granted the Plaintiffsmotion, approved the proposed notice jointly submittedby the parties, and allowed 45 days for tribes to join theaction. NARF sent out the Court-approved notice to 247tribes in October 2008.

In December 2008, thirty American Indian/AlaskaNative tribes joined the Nez Perce Tribe v. Kempthorneaction under NARF’s representation seeking accountingsof their tribal trust funds from the federal government.One other tribe joined represented by its own attorneys,bringing the total number of tribes in this action to 43.The Court officially denied class certification onDecember 1, 2008.

The government, however, continues to insist that thecourt does not have jurisdiction over these cases or in thealternative, if the court does have jurisdiction, the court’srole in the cases is limited to review of the agency record.In June 2008, the government moved to dismiss thisaction and the actions of seven other tribes. All of theTribes opposed dismissal. The dismissal motion remainspending before the Court.

In addition, in April 2008, the Plaintiffs in this action,along with 22 other tribes in other separate actions,moved the Court for a Trust Records Preservation Order.The Trust Records Preservation Order would haverequired the government to report lost or damaged trustrecords to the Court. At the conclusion of the oral argument in July 2008, the Court denied the TrustRecords Preservation Order Motion on the grounds thatin his view it was unnecessary to have judicial oversightof this matter at this time. The Tribes did not appeal thisadverse decision. ❂


The Accountability of Governments



The Development of Indian LawThe systematic development of Indian law is essential

for the continued protection of Indian rights. Thisprocess involves distributing Indian law materials to andcommunicating with those groups and individuals working on behalf of Indian people. NARF has two ongoing projects which are aimed at achieving this goal,the National Indian Law Library and the Indian LawSupport Center.

The National Indian Law Library The National Indian Law Library (NILL) is a national

public law library devoted to Indian law which serves bothNARF and the public. Since it was started as a NARF project in 1972, NILL has collected nearly 9,000 resourcematerials that relate to federal Indian and tribal law. TheLibrary’s holdings include the largest collection of tribalcodes, ordinances and constitutions in the United States;

legal pleadings from major Indian cases; and law review articles on Indian law topics. In addition to making itscatalog and extensive collection available to the public,NILL provides reference and research assistance relatingto Indian law and tribal law.

NILL has completed two significant projects recently.First, NILL worked with various departments on therecent case involving a Native American student in NorthCarolina who wanted to wear feathers on his robe duringgraduation to honor his family, despite opposition fromthe student’s school board. The Library provided researchabout the prevalence of graduates at high schools and colleges being allowed to wear attire that includes religious/cultural articles. This research helped NARFand the ACLU resolve this issue. (This is just one exampleof the type of work NILL performs for NARF and the public on a regular basis.)



In addition, in June of 2008 NILLlaunched its new research requestsoftware through its web site. Thepublic can ask questions via theRefTracker service. This service allowsNILL to more efficiently manage theapproximately 140 research and infor-mation requests it receives eachmonth. The new name for this interac-tion is askNILL. This service allowsNILL staff to share, answer, and savequestions and answers. Saved answerscan be searched and retrieved by NILLstaff to help answer new questionswith similar focuses. The software alsoallows the staff to collect data to compilestatistics regarding service trendswhich will influence collection devel-opment and help with grant writing.

Indian Law Support CenterSince 1972, NARF’s Indian Law Support Center (ILSC)

has served as a national support center on Indian law andpolicy for the national Indian legal services communityand the 32 basic field programs serving Native Americanclients. ILSC continues to send out regular correspon-dence to Indian Legal Services (ILS) programs, handlingrequests for assistance, and working with Indian legalservices programs to secure a more stable funding basefrom the Congress. The U.S. Department of Justiceawarded a grant of $1,987,000 to NARF in 2004. Most ofthe grant funds have been contracted out to the Indianlegal services programs with a small portion used to coverNARF administrative costs. We continue to be activelyinvolved with local ILS programs in the administration ofthe grant and in developing training events to meet localprogram needs. Funding in the amount of $1,726,626 forcalendar year 2006 was appropriated by Congress for theproject. Funding via 2007 and 2008 CongressionalAppropriations was unsuccessful, and funding within theFY 2009 budget does not appear feasible. We continue towork with ILS on a strategy for FY 2010 funding.

Other ActivitiesIn addition to its major projects, NARF continued its

participation in numerous conferences and meetings ofIndian and non-Indian organizations in order to share itsknowledge and expertise in Indian law. During the pastfiscal year, NARF attorneys and staff served in formal orinformal speaking and leadership capacities at numerousIndian and Indian-related conferences and meetings suchas the National Congress of American Indians ExecutiveCouncil, Midyear and Annual Conventions, and theFederal Bar Association’s Indian Law Conference. NARFremains firmly committed to continuing its effort toshare the legal expertise which it possesses with thesegroups and individuals working in support of Indianrights and to foster the recognition of Indian rights inmainstream society. ❂


Based on our audited financial statements for the fiscalyear ending September 30, 2008, the Native AmericanRights Fund reports total unrestricted revenues of$5,809,930 against total expenditures of $7,159,550.Total net assets at the end of the year came to $7,207,196.Due to presentation requirements of the audited financialstatements in terms of recognizing the timing of certainrevenues, they do not reflect the fact that, based onNARF’s internal reporting, expenses, losses and othercash outlays exceeded revenue by $1,314,404, resulting in

a decrease to NARF’s reserve fund. The decrease in PublicContributions is due to a bequest that we received foralmost $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2007. Tribal contribu-tions continued to increase due to fund raising efforts inthis area. Legal Fees increased due to escalated activity inour major cases. Along with the overall investment markets, our investments took a huge hit in fiscal year 2008.

Revenue and Expense comparisons between fiscal year2007 and fiscal year 2008 are shown below.


NARF 2008 Financial Report

Note: This summary of financial information has been extracted from NARF’s audited financial statements which received an unqualified opinion by theaccounting firm of JDS Professional Group. Complete audited financials are available, upon request, through our Boulder office or at www.narf.org.

Public Contributions

Tribal Contributions

Federal Awards

Foundation Grants

Return on Investments

Other

TOTALS

$ 3,723,064

1,059,100

85,150

530,652

1,331,288

615,566

32,901

$ 7,377,721

50.5%

14.4%

1.2%

7.2%

18.0%

8.3%

0.4%

100%

$ 2,288,390

1,398,950

158,447

643,982

2,059,580

(790,470)

51,051

$ 5,809,930

39.4%

24.1%

2.7%

11.1%

35.4%

(13.6)%

0.9%

100%

dollars percents

2007

UNRESTRICTED SUPPORT AND REVENUE COMPARISON

EXPENSE COMPARISON

dollars percents

2008

Legal Fees

dollars percents

2007dollars percents

2008

Litigation and Client Services

National Indian Law Library

Total Program Services

Management and General

Fund Raising

Total Support Services

TOTALS

$ 4,049,683

271,543

4,321,226

791,330

1,422,633

2,213,963

$ 6,535,189

61.9%

4.2%

66.1%

12.1%

21.8%

33.9%

100%

65.0%

4.2%

69.2%

10.9%

19.9%

30.8%

100%

$ 4,656,499

297,599

4,954,098

781,522

1,423,930

2,205,452

$ 7,159,550


Living Waters Endowment

Elwood H. Brotzman Memorial Fund

Jerome Davis Living WatersEndowment Fund

Kathleen and Ruth DooleyFamily Fund

Edward & Verna Gerbic Family Foundation

Susan K. Griffiths Memorial Fund

The Robert and Joy HansonLeland Endowment

Frank J. McCormick Family Fund

Marvin W. Pourier, Sr. & DonnaM. Deans Memorial Fund

Mary Lou Mosca-RagonaMemorial Fund

Ernest L. Schusky Endowment

Helen & Sidney Ungar MemorialEndowment Fund

Foundations, Corporations andOrganizations

Ford Foundation

Bay and Paul Foundation

Everett Public ServiceInternship Program

Open Society Institute

Americans for IndianOpportunity

Arches Foundation

Aria Foundation

Biedenharn Foundation

Charles P. & Mary E. BelgardeFoundation

Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP

Edward & Verna Gerbic FamilyFoundation

Fredericks, Peebles & Morgan, LLP

Indian Land Tenure Foundation

Lutheran CommunityFoundation

Millberg LLP

Oppenheimer Funds Legacy Program

Panaphil Foundation

Roche Colorado Corporation

Stanley Family Foundation

The Tzo-Nah Fund

Ungar Foundation

Utah State Employee Charitable Fund

Corporate Matching Gifts

Adobe Systems Inc

AIG Matching Grants Program

Ameriprise Financial EmployeeGift Matching Program

Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

Axa Equitable

Dell

Direct T.V. Matching Gift Center

Edison International

Fannie Mae FoundationMatching Gifts Center

G.E. Foundation

Goldman, Sachs & Company

Google

JK Group Trustees For VisaInternational's

Key Foundation

Macy's Foundation

Microsoft Corporation

Microsoft Corporation

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Symetra

The David & Lucile PackardFoundation

United Airlines

Verizon Foundation

Vivendi Universal US Holding Co.

WellPoint Foundation, AssociateGiving Campaign

Xcel Energy Foundation

Tribes and Native Organizations

Ahtna, Inc.

Ak Chin Indian Community

Americans For IndianOpportunity

Barona Band of Mission Indians

Bear River Band of RohnervilleRancheria

Chickasaw Nation

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana

Chumash Casino

Confederated Tribes Of Siletz Indians

Cow Creek Band Of UmpquaTribe Of Indians

Drumbeat Indian Arts

Eagle Opportunity Alliance

Fond du Lac Band Reservation

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Institute of American Indian Arts

Keweenaw Bay IndianCommunity

Little Traverse Bay Band ofOdawa Indians

Lower Sioux Indian Communityof Minnesota

Manilaq Association

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe

Miccosukee Indian Gaming

Native American Bank

Native Americans inPhilanthropy

Nez Perce Tribe

Oneida Tribe of Indians ofWisconsin

Osage Nation

Rumsey Indian Rancheria

Sac & Fox Nation of Oklahoma

San Manuel Band

Seminole Tribe of Florida

Seneca Nation of Indians

Seven Cedars Casino

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community

Siletz Tribe

Sycuan Band of The Kumeyaay Nation

Table Mountain Rancheria

Tulalip Tribes

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians

Yurok Tribe

Bequests and Trusts

Nina Barghoom

Jean Crawford

Carolyn Ferriday

Stella Frohriep

Helen Gates

Barbara Leighton

Susan Niven


NARF Acknowledgment of Contributions: Fiscal Year 2008We thank each and every one of our supporters for their commitment to the goals of NARF. NARF’s success could not have been achieved without the generosity of our many donors throughout the nation. We gratefullyacknowledge these gifts received for fiscal year 2008 (October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008).



Marjorie Parker

Elizabeth Phillips

Anita Potocki

V. H. Reckmeyer

Violet G. Young Charitable Trust

William Wenzel

Ernest Ziegfield

Peta Uha Pipestone

John S. Bevan

Robert Friede

Peta Uha Turquoise

Tina Peterson

Donald & Linda Seberger

Peta Uha Granite

Julie Montana

Collier Hands

Lyle Dethlefsen

Peta Uha Flint

Jerald Anderson

James & Louise Arnold

Robert & Patricia Berry

William & Elsa Boyce

Peter Broner

Mary Brook

Mark Cooke

Lucille Echohawk

Bert & JoAnn Eder

Jeanne Morrel-Franklin

Rico Genhart

Duncan Haas

Sara Hinckley

Karin Holser

Frederic Kottke

Scott & Ricki Kresan

Yvonne LeMelle

Mr. & Mrs. William Lyman

James Marienthal

Harry McAndrew

Gene Miller

Brent & Marilyn Minney

Frannie Oates

Claude & Noelle Poncelet

Edith Quevedo

Carolyn Reyer

Esther Hayward Rivinus

Faith Roessel

Ruth Schuster

Peter Sheldon

Mathew Slater

Mary Sprague

Walter Stock

Bridget Stroud

Gilbert Tauck

Margaret Verble

Janice Warner

Stephen Wasby

David Winston

Mary Zerby

Peta Uha Obsidian

Mary Bane

Barbara Bastle

Norval Bhendra

Marjorie Blachly

David & Barbara Boerner

Elizabeth Celio

Mr. & Mrs. Madelyn Chafin

Patricia deKoven

Anne DeMuth

Laura Dennison

Thomas & Jane Dunphy

Daren & Amy Eilert

Anne Evans

Charlotte Evans

Judy Fair-Spaulding

Lyman Flinn

Herbert Floyd

Elvin Fowler

Andrew & Audrey Franklin

Mr. & Mrs. James Grunbaum

Carole Hall

Robert Hallameck

Mark Hodge

Sherrill Hogen

Judith Horton

Brenda Jones

Gerri Kay

George & Carolyn Koehler

Joan Lester

Hal Litoff

Janet McAlpin

Donald McKinley

Michael Meredith

Shirley Miolla

Josie Moyer

Barbara Musicus

Robert Phillips

Mary Podmostko

Mr. & Mrs. Martin Ritter

Alfred Schwendtner

Margaret Travis

Jennifer Vanica

Margaret Weitzmann

Lisa Wersal

NARF Acknowledgment of Contributions: Fiscal Year 2008



CIRCLE OF LIFE – Catches Bear & Judy Adams, Rodney Addison,Richard & Gloria Adkinson, Maxwell Barnard,Barbara Beasley, Diane Ben Ari, Roy Benson,Sandra Berger, Bobby Bitner, BettyBlumenkamp, Dr. & Mrs. Charles Bowers,Dale Brand, William Brown, Gloria Burgess,Patricia Burnet, Thomas Campbell, LawrenceCandel, Arthur Carter, Robert Carter, MaryCasmus, Ed Chasteen, Paul Clifton, CharlesCole, Janet Congero, Judith Day, HarveyDennenberg, Lyle Dethlefsen, GaryDickerhoof, Starr Dormann, Patricia Duval,Noelle Edwards, Allison Emerson, Judy Fair-Spaulding, James Fee, Debra Frazier, JanFreeman, Lyle Funderburk, Suzanne Gartz,Lawrence Geller, Deborah Ghoreyeb, EstelaGoldsmith, Louise Gomer Bangel, ArlineGoodrich, Bernard Gordon, Gene Grabau,Jean Gundlach, Merrill Hakim, Michael Hall,Margaret Hartnett, Theodora Haughton,Patricia Heidelberger, Alfred Hoose, JudithHorton, Veronica Ifill, Elizabeth Johnson,Vusama Kariba, Emily Kirk, Betty Kleczy,Margo Kochruthe, Ellyne Krakower - Rice,Edward Kriege, James Langharst, SharonLaughlin, Ingrid Leblanc, James Lehnerer,Frank Loveland, Richard Luers, Rima Lurie,Suzanne MacDonald, Patricia Marks-Greenfield, Marion McCollom Hampton,Joseph McNamara, Stanley Metzger, Peter &Betty Meyer, Gary Montgomery, Leila Moore,Jeanne Morrel-Franklin, Jeanne Moskal,Shirley Norton, Marc Pearce, Moses Peter,Randall Petersen, Denise Pfalzer, RosePilcarsky, Thelma Populus Gordon, B. Powell,Horace Raines, Robert & Mary Resnik,Maureen Ripley, Barbara Roberts, AndreaRobinsong, June Rosenthal, Keith Ross,William Rozier, Mary Sacher, B. Sampson,Peter Schmidt, LaRoy Seaver, Michael Seeley,Charlotte Selver, Katey Simetra, Mr. & Mrs.Charles Smith, Kirk Sperry, Carolyn Staby,Herbert Stewart, James & Patricia Straus,Rennard Strickland, Michael & CarolSullivan, Louis Tabois, Valeria Tenyak,

Charlotte Thompson, M. Turek, John Tyler,Rene' Vivo', William Wade, Ted Weitz, Robert& Mary Wellman, Roger Welsch, Gary White,Karen Williams-Fast Horse, Marcel Wingate,David Yeoman, Wayne Zengel.

NARF Employee Endowment Giving - Rose Cuny, John Echohawk, Kim Gottschalk,Heather Kendall, Melody McCoy, SteveMoore, Christine Pereira, Donald Ragona, Ray Ramirez, David Selden, Don Wharton.

Special EventsNARF gratefully honors our many friendsand partners who sponsored and supportedour special events in 2008. Thank you foryour support and for caring so deeply aboutIndian rights, laws and issues. NARF wouldlike to give special acknowledgment andthanks to our major event sponsors in thelast fiscal year:

Boulder Modern Day Warriors Art Show,November 2007 – Turquoise Sponsors: The Native AmericanBank, The Inez C. Moss Family of PechangaBand of Luiseño Mission Indians, Aine Ungar,Belgarde Enterprises & John Bevan. Silver Sponsor: Chickasaw Nation. Obsidian Sponsor: Millberg Weiss LLP. Granite Sponsors: Miccosukee Resort &Gaming, BME Federal Credit Union, PaulMoorhead, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP &Roche Colorado Corp. Flint Sponsors: The Community Foundation,Fond du Lac Reservation, Marlene, B.C. &Daniel EchoHawk, The Bennington Centerfor the Arts, The Daily Camera, The OutlookHotel & Suites. Flagstone Sponsors: Elk Valley Rancheria,First Nations Development Institute, Peter K.Manning & Jeanne Morrel-Franklin, TheBoulder Weekly & James Travel Points.Donating Artists: NARF wishes to extendour heartfelt thanks to this year’s featuredartists who have a great service to Nativerights through their generosity and artistic

talents. The 30 young artists, representing 34tribes from across the United States wereselected from NARF’s National ArtCompetition held this Fall for Native artistsages 15-35 years. A total of 103 works of visual art were reviewed by a national jurycomprised of artists and non-profit, business,media, publishing and marketing professionalswho chose a total of 50 works of art to beexhibited this evening. 2007 NARF ModernDay Warrior young Native American artistsselected to exhibit are: Votan (Maya/Nahua);Daniel McCoy (Muscogee/Potawotami); CaraMcDonald (Chemehuvei); Natasha Wagner(Chickasaw); Bunky Echo-Hawk(Pawnee/Yakama); Arion Poitra (TurtleMountain Band of Chippewa); David Bernie(Yankton Sioux); Julius Badoni (Navajo);Hilary Glass (Cherokee/Yakama); Alyssa Macy(Wasco/Navajo/Hopi); Vonnie Alberts (ThreeAffiliated Tribes, Fort Berthold IndianReservation); Sacheen Smith (Navajo); LavinaBowers (Yurok); Manuel Monguia (CahuillaBand of Indians); Jay McCray (Navajo); DylanAdam Torkelson Miner (Woodland Métis);Andrew Morrison (Haida/ Apache); NadyaKwandibens (Anishinabe); Valarie Norris (RedLake Nation); Chris Pappan (Kaw Nation);Sharyl Pahe (Diné/San Carlos Apache);Courtney Parchcorn(Chickasaw/Kiowa/Cherokee/Creek); ErinGenia (Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate); DanteMcCoy (Cherokee); Venaya Yazzie (Diné);Ryan Red Corn (Osage); Monty Singer(Navajo); Jasmine Vigil (Jicarilla Apache/Jemez Pueblo); and Chris Turley (Osage). NARF would like to acknowledge and thankour 2007 Modern Day Warriors National ArtJury comprised of the following individuals:Russ Tall Chief (Native Peoples Magazine),J.D. Colbert (President, Native AmericanBank), Jodi Rave (Journalist, Lee Enterprises& The Missoulian), Randy Bardwell (RedLodge Industries), Carly Hare (CommunityFoundation), Marlene & Daniel EchoHawk(Indian Health Service), Jack Lenzo (Fulcrum



Publishing), Mark Tilden (Attorney, NARF)and Robert Martinez (Artist). Thanks to All Our Additional Sponsors,Contributors & Supporters of the NARFModern Day Warriors Art Show: All of theyoung Native artists who participated in theNARF Modern Day Warriors national art com-petition; Angie Vossler & The St. JulienHotel; The National Congress of AmericanIndians (NCAI) and its Local PlanningCommittee; Mustard's Last Stand;McGuckins; BJ Bastle; Richard Kim; JudithHorton; Anne E. Demuth; AudreyLightemple;, Sara Jane McImes; CatherineKnight; Michael Byrne; Donna Mayo; EleanorCrow; Michael Berg, Big F Restaurant; R.Morehaus; Eight Northern Pueblos Council;Pedestrian Shop; Island Burgers; Rio GrandeMexican Restaurant; Red Hand Media;Santiago & Santa Fe Arts; Transit Marketing;Carly and Dawna Hare; Pat Ragona and HighCountry Harley Davidson; Alyssa Macy; ChrisBailey & Dynamic Events; Adam Feldbruggeat Rebirth Design; Mark Huebner at RageUnlimited; Bunky Echo-Hawk; Quese ImcFrejo; Pat Cantley; Teresa Halsey at KGNU;Tara Gatewood at Native America Calling;Jenni Monet; Crista Echo-Hawk; MeghanMeisters; Daylight A/V Productions; Ray &Carmen Ramirez; Don Ragona; Rose Cuny;Rita; Kayla; Kim Cameron & The RockyMountain Indian Chamber; David Bernie;Mireille Martinez; Jennifer Redbone and to allour NARF staff, family and supporters.

Honoring Our Leaders & BuildingPartnerships for the Future of IndianCountry Dinner, Santa Fe, NM – EagleOpportunity & Milberg LLP. Thanks to ourMaster of Ceremonies, Conroy Chino and ourKeynote Speaker Richard Bowers, Presidentof Seminole Tribe of Florida, Inc.

7th Annual Visions for the Future BenefitArt Auction, Santa Fe, NM – Turquoise Sponsor: Cow Creek Band ofUmpqua Tribe of Indians; Silver Sponsors: John Bevan, Table Mountain

Rancheria, Eagle Opportunity, Milberg LLP,Rumsey Rancheria; Sage Sponsor: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation;Saguaro Sponsor: Americans for IndianOpportunity (AIO); Juniper Sponsors: Anthony Pico & ViejasBand of Kumeyaay Indians, Native Americansin Philanthropy, Fond du Lac Band Reservation,Mary A. Johnston & Mark C. Cooke; Santa Fe Donating Artists (in-kind):Featured Artist Brent Greenwood, KimberlyMacLoud, Micki Free & the Seminole HardRock Hotel & Casino, Na Na Ping, RanceHood, Eric Ginsburg, Michael Horse, BillySoza Warsoldier, Eddie Running Wolf, BunkyEcho-Hawk, David Bernie, TerenceGuardipee, Hans Rose, Ryan Red Corn,Leonard Benari, Shirley Miolla, JulianSpalding, Chris Pappan, Amado Pena,Kathleen Senzell, Kim Knifechief, LillianFeldpunsch, Luz- Maria Lopez, JeanBowerman, Brett Lee Shelton, Thayne Hake,Jesse Hummingbird, Sonny Howell III,Glenda Loretto, Janice Black Elk & DanielJim, Michael Roanhorse, J.D. Rhynes, GlennBooker, Cara McDonald, Votan, Niki Lee,Alyssa Macy, Consuelo Lucero, Diana Lucero,Andrea Hill, Joy Orcutt, Sybil Amber, JoanelleRomero, Andrew Rodriguez, John Gonzales,Fernando Benally, Liz Nicholas, NatashaWagner, Monty Singer, Rollie Grandbois, JoyHarjo, Andrew Rodriguez, Venaya Yazzie, RitaIringan, Stephanie Sorbell, Jeana Francis, EliSecody, Ipo Nihipali & Dina Gilio. Donating Businesses, Organizations &Individuals: Morongo Casino, Resort & Spa-An enterprise of the Morongo Band ofMission Indians, Georgia O'Keeffe Museum,Buffalo Thunder Resort & Casino, La FondaHotel, Motel Santa Fe, Encantado Resort,The Message Company, Towa Golf Club, Innof the Anasazi, El Monte Sagrado LivingResort & Spa, Foxwoods Resort & Casino,Native American Public Telecommunications,Santa Fe Audio & Visual & Sister Sky, DianeBen-Ari, Jan Tucker, Michael McBride, NativeModels, Shelley Cohen, Jesse Sanchez, Sara

S. Hinkley, Claude Poncelet, Grace Pacheco,Louise Ireland-Frey, Marlene Echo Hawk,R.M. Hart, Jeanne Morrell-Franklin,Margaret R. Bogue, Richard Kim, RobertLoftfield, George Harrington, Jr., Jim &Rachel Osborne, Anne E. DeMuth, BekKjelshus, Don Atwood, Lyle Funderburk,Debra L. Compton, Joan Beuttler, LavonneBiernbaum, Douglas Thompson, NormanDavies, Jacqueline Pine, Keith Ross,Chumash Casino Harry McAndrew, Thomas& Jane Dunphy, Chitimacha Tribe ofLouisiana, Shelley Cohen, Jesse Sanchez,Sara S. Hinkley, Robert Scarborough & MoseAllison. Volunteers & Staff: RebeccaMartinez, Alyssa Macy, Carly Hare, JamesCuny, Mireille Martinez, Jennifer Redbone,Rose Cuny, Don Ragona, Rodney Grant &Native Models, Inc.

Boulder-Denver Advisory Committee –Lucille A. Echohawk, Thomas W. Fredericks,David Getches, Ava Hamilton, JeanneWhiteing, Charles Wilkinson.

Federated Workplace CampaignsThank you to the thousands of federal, state,municipal and private sector employeesthroughout the country who through theirpayroll deduction plans contributed $89,144in fiscal year 2008.

Show Your Support in NARF’s programs –NARF receives contributions from founda-tions, corporations, religious organizations,tribes and Native organizations, bequests andtrusts, benefactors, private donations, and in-kind contributions. Below are descriptions ofNARF’s donor programs and additional waysyou can get involved.

Peta Uha Membership – Peta Uha in theLakota (Sioux) language means firekeeper.One that honors tribal members who made asolemn commitment to ensure that thesacred flame, source of light, heat and energyfor his people, always be kept burning. Likethe firekeepers of old, members of the PetaUha Council can demonstrate constancy and

NARF Acknowledgment of Contributions: Fiscal Year 2008



vigilance by helping to ensure that the criti-cal work of the Native American Rights Fundcontinues to move ever forward. For benefitsassociated with each level of Peta Uha mem-bership, please contact Donald Ragona,303.447.8760 or e-mail him [email protected].

Tsanáhwit Circle – Tsanáhwit is a Nez Perceword meaning equal justice. TsanáhwitCircle members provide a regular source ofincome to NARF by pledging and makingmonthly contributions at any level of yourchoice. You may sign up to receive monthlypledge reminders in the mail or your creditcard may be billed automatically.

Otu’han Gift Membership – Otu’han is theLakota Sioux word translated as giveaway.Otu’han is a memorial and honoring gift pro-gram modeled after the tradition of theIndian giveaway in which items of value aregathered over a long period of time to begiven away in honor of birthdays, marriages,anniversaries, and in memory of a departedloved one.

Circle of Life – NARF’s Circle of Life aredonors who provide a lasting legacy to theNative American Rights Fund by includingNARF in estate planning or deferred gifts.The circle is an important symbol to NativeAmericans representing unity, strength andthe eternal continuity of life. These lastinggifts help ensure the future of NARF and ourIndian clients nationwide.

Endowments – NARF has two establishedendowments, the 21st Century Endowmentand the Living Waters Endowment. The 21stCentury Endowment is a permanent fund inwhich the principal is invested and interestincome is used for NARF’s programs. Thisendowment is designed to provide a perma-nent, steady income that can support theever-increasing costs of providing legal representation to our tribal clients. TheLiving Waters Endowment directly funds the21st Century Endowment. It allows donors to

honor friends and loved ones by making anendowment gift of $10,000 or more. By des-ignating a gift to either endowment, you canbe sure that your contribution will continueto generate annual funds in perpetuity.Endowment supporters are recognized on aspecial wall plaque displayed at NARF.Supporters will also receive a memorial piecefor their home and be acknowledged inNARF’s annual report.

Workplace Campaigns – NARF is a memberof America’s Charities, a national workplacegiving federation. Giving through your work-place is as easy as checking off NARF’s box onthe Combined Federal Campaign (CFC)pledge form authorizing automatic payrolldeduction. NARF is also a member ofCommunity Shares of Colorado (CSC), mem-ber #5037.

Matching Gifts – Currently, more than 25foundations and corporations nationwidemake matching gifts to NARF on a regularbasis. Employers match their employees’contributions sometimes doubling or eventripling their donation. Please check withyour human resources office and request amatching gift form.

E-Action – Sign up for our e-action networkby providing NARF with your email address .This is a great way to get periodic caseupdates, calls-to-action, special events infor-mation, invitations and other activities. Youre-mail address is confidential and we will notshare it with any outside sources. For furtherinformation about any of the programs orservices, please contact NARF’s DevelopmentDepartment at 303-447-8760. Thank you.

NARF 2008 Annual Report photo credits:

Page 2: Talan Gover

Page 3: Honoring our elders at NARF

Page 9: Margaret Red Shirt Tyon

Page 10: NARF Board member BillyFrank

Page 11: NARF attorney HeatherKendall-Miller speaking at the UnitedNations

Page 13: NARF attorney Richard Guestmaking a presentation on the TribalSupreme Court Project

Page 15: Meeting at NARF – formerNARF attorney Patrice Kunesh center

Page 16: NARF Board member AnthonyPico

Page 19: NARF attorney KimGottschalk

Page 24: NARF attorney Melody McCoy

Page 25: Meeting at NARF

Page 27: NARF Board Chair DeliaCarlyle

Page 29: NARF guests; NARF Boardmember Kunani Nihipali

Page 30: NARF Board member Ron HisHorse Is Thunder

Page 31: Top left clockwise – NARF honoring of our elders; NARFstaff members David Gover and EricAnderson; NARF attorney David Goverand his wife Cita; NARF Board membersAnthony Pico and Lydia Olympic; NARF summer law clerks; honoringelders at NARF.

Page 33: Native Hawaiian attorneyEddie Ayau and NARF attorney WalterEcho-Hawk

CORPORATE OFFICERS

John E. Echohawk (Pawnee)Executive Director/Attorney

K. Jerome GottschalkLitigation Management CommitteeMember/Attorney

Natalie Landreth (Chickasaw)Litigation Management Committee/Attorney

Melody McCoy (Cherokee)Litigation Management CommitteeMember/Attorney

Donald M. Ragona (Mattinecock/Oglala Lakota)Director of Development

Ray RamirezSecretary/Editor/Technical Writer

Michael KennedyChief Financial Officer/Assistant Controller

BOULDER MAIN OFFICE STAFF

John E. Echohawk (Pawnee)Executive Director/Attorney

Amy Bowers (Yurok)Attorney

Walter R. Echo-Hawk (Pawnee)Attorney

K. Jerome GottschalkAttorney

David Gover (Pawnee/Choctaw)Attorney

Melody McCoy (Cherokee)Attorney

Steven C. MooreAttorney

Mark Tilden (Navajo)Attorney

Donald R. WhartonAttorney

Eric AndersonLegal Assistant

David Bernie (Yankton Sioux)Office Services Assistant

Rose Cuny (Oglala Lakota)Office Manager

Crystal Echo Hawk (Pawnee)Assistant Development Director

Chrissy JohnsonLegal Assistant

Michael KennedyAssistant Controller

Mireille MartinezDevelopment Projects Coordinator

Katrina Mora (Oglala Lakota)Office Services Assistant

Christine PereiraMicro Computer Specialist

Donald M. Ragona (Mattinecock/Oglala Lakota)Director of Development

Ray RamirezEditor/Technical Writer/Public Relations

Jennifer Redbone (Apache/Comanche/ Kiowa)Development Staff Assistant

Clela RorexLaw Office Administrator

Joanne SoklinLegal Assistant

Debbie Raymond-Thomas (Navajo)Assistant Controller

Jennie Tsikewa (Zuni)Accountant

NATIONAL INDIAN LAW LIBRARY

David SeldenLibrarian

Monica MartensAssistant Law Librarian

ANCHORAGE OFFICE STAFF

Heather Kendall-Miller (Athabascan)Attorney

Natalie Landreth (Chickasaw)Attorney

Jonathan BriggsLegal Administrative Assistant

WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE STAFF

Richard GuestAttorney

Dawn Baum (Mole Lake Chippewa/Menominee)Attorney

Angela GonzalezLegal Assistant

NARF Staff


Documents

Native American Rights Fund · human rights,NARF strives to enforce and strengthen ... year-old Native American child attending public school in ... behalf of Yup’ik speaking Alaska