U.S. high court to hear case on virus relief for tribes
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that centers on who gets a share of $8 billion in federal coronavirus relief allocated for Native American tribes.
Lower courts split on whether Alaska Native corporations, which own most Native land in the state under a 1971 settlement, should be in the mix. The U.S. Treasury Department sought review from the high court after a federal appeals court ruled in September that the corporations aren’t eligible.
The Treasury Department said if the decision stands, the corporations will lose out on “hundreds of millions of dollars” in funding and be deprived of their ability to help Alaska Natives when it comes to health care, education and economic well-being.
The Supreme Court included the case on its order list Friday. It’s unclear whether it will be argued in the spring or fall session. The key question is whether the corporations are considered “tribes” under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act.
The case has required judges, attorneys, Native American tribes and the Alaska corporations to pick apart language of the act, congressional intent and a 1975 federal law meant to strengthen tribes’ ability to govern themselves.
More than a dozen Native American tribes sued the U.S. Treasury Department last year to try to keep the money out of the hands of the corporations. They argued it should go only to the 574 tribes that have a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
Most of the money, except for about $530 million, has been distributed to Native American governments, according to court documents.
Tribes initially had until Dec. 30, 2020, to spend the money, but a bill that President Donald Trump recently signed extended the deadline for another year.
The case is being closely watched around Indian Country for its broader implications.
“The case is also about more than money,” said Paul Spruhan, an attorney with the Navajo Nation, which is a plaintiff in the case. “It is also about the role of the Alaska Native corporations as opposed to Native Villages and other actual tribal sovereigns and whether such business entities should ever have the same status of bona fide tribes.”
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., ruled in June that the corporations can be treated as tribal governments for limited purposes, in an initial victory for the U.S. Treasury Department.
The corporations have argued their roles are essential in supporting the more than 230 Alaska Native villages through employment opportunities, job training, scholarships, cultural preservation programs, land management and economic development.
“We hold strong our belief that Alaska Native people should not be punished for the unique tribal system that Congress established for the state 50 years ago,” the ANCSA Regional Association and the Alaska Native Village Corporation Association said in a statement on Friday.
In a related matter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit revived a case that the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma filed against the Treasury Department over the initial disbursement of CARES Act funding to tribes based on population. The department relied on a formula used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which showed the Shawnee and two dozen other tribes had no citizens. Each received the minimum $100,000 in relief funding.
The Shawnee Tribe said its actual population is more than 3,000 and argued it was shortchanged by millions of dollars.
Mehta also heard that case and ruled that the Treasury Department has discretion in how it distributes the funding and, therefore, it wasn’t subject to court review.
The appellate court has sent the case back to the district court for a ruling on the merits.
Split verdict conviction tossed for ex-NFL star’s killer
The U.S. Supreme Court has thrown out the manslaughter conviction for the man who shot former New Orleans Saints star Will Smith to death in 2016.
Monday’s order in favor of Cardell Hayes had been expected. In December 2017, a jury convicted Hayes by a vote of 10-2 on charges of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter in the death of Smith and the wounding of Smith’s wife, who was struck in the leg by gunfire. But the Supreme Court has since ruled that such convictions must be unanimous.
A state appeals court gets the case next but, ultimately, it will be up to the new district attorney in New Orleans, Jason Williams, to decide whether to put Hayes, 33, on trial again. Hayes is serving a 25-year sentence.
The shootings followed arguments after a traffic crash. Hayes said he shot in self-defense. A state appeals court rejected that argument.
Surveillance video from the night of the shooting showed Smith’s Mercedes SUV possibly bumping Hayes’ Hummer, then driving off. Hayes followed them and rammed his vehicle into Smith’s. Both then got out and argued in the street.
Hayes insisted at trial that he fired after a drunk, angry Smith retrieved a gun from his car and fired first. But Hayes was the only witness to say Smith held a gun or fired it. A handgun was found loaded but unused in Smith’s car.
Williams’ office issued a release noting the Supreme Court action on the Hayes case and another, lesser known, split-verdict case in Louisiana. It said both cases “will receive thorough review and a decision in the coming weeks on the best way to proceed under the law to deliver justice.”
Smith helped carry the New Orleans Saints to a winning season in 2006 and a Super Bowl victory in 2010.
Hayes, 33, who owned a tow-truck business, had played semi-pro football and is the father of a young son.
Justices say women must obtain abortion pill in person
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ordered Tuesday that women must visit a doctor’s office, hospital or clinic in person to obtain an abortion pill during the COVID-19 pandemic, though similar rules for other drugs have been suspended during the public health emergency.
Eight days before President Donald Trump leaves office, the justices granted a Trump administration appeal to be able to enforce a longstanding rule on getting the abortion pill, mifepristone. The pill need not be taken in the presence of medical professionals.
The court split 6-3, with the liberal justices in dissent. The new administration could put the in-person requirement on hold after Joe Biden takes office on Jan. 20.
A federal judge had suspended the rule since July because of the coronavirus, in response to a lawsuit from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other groups.
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang affirmed the suspension of the rule in December, saying public health risks for patients had increased as COVID-19 cases soared.
The Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone to be used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy or manage a miscarriage.
The administration has suspended similar in-person visits for other drugs, including opioids in some cases, but refused to relax the rules for getting the abortion pill.
In October, the Supreme Court allowed women to continue getting the abortion pill by mail but deferred any substantive ruling. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have granted the administration’s request then.
At the time, there were only eight justices on the court, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett had been nominated, but not yet confirmed. Barrett took the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September.
