Amicus Curiae Brief — DeFunis v. Odegaard
Supreme Court brief1974
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
i
|
a”
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CasEs:
Arizona ex rel. Merrill v. Turtle,
413 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1969) 7 8
Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe,
259 F.2d 553 (8th Cir. 1958) 8
Bolling v.
347 US. 497 (1954) 10
Elk v. Wilkins,
112 US. 94 a (ee) 11
peg: fa wre! 674 (10th Cir. 1971) 11
Kennerly v. District Court,
a0 08, 423 no gene 5
Mancari v.
359 F. Supp 3 585 (D.C_D.NM.
Pyramid Lake Tribe v. Morton,
BF, Supp. 252 (D.ODC. 1972) _.......
449 ‘at b6r (oth Cir. 1971)
Sineacies. ids bettadane
(he F 808 (E.D. Wash. 1966),
yt affirmed UE, 200 (1006)
State v. Doxtater,
47 Wis. 278, 2 N.W. 439 (1879)
Talton v. M
163 Us a6 (1896)
shag ur Hickel,
US. 598 a
24 F. Cas. 937 0. 14, 495) (c.c. Tenn. 1834),
118 U.S. 375 (1886)
United Statés v. Rogers,
< ne US. (4 How.) 567 (1846)
Post v. Arizona Tax Commission,
_ mn U8. 6 (1965)
Williams v. Lee,
358 us. 217 (1959)
31 US. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)
SraTruTes AND TREATIES:
Treaty of September 17, 1778 (7 Stat. 13) sper
SUSC. §3 ... oe
Crossland, Minority Access to College (1971) ......... ,
26 UBL SAR hire sicinerhem itr ihe ctibentidebhd a) AD
25 US.C. § 44-46 rence
25 US.C. §§ 81, 82, 82(a), 84. _ 10
25 USC. § 122 . iieceniraieserascicnidiee ae
25 US.C. § 231 > ccliyale< 30
25 USC. § 297 .......... é urevevecsicevenssee | AQ
S USC Wis) ee
25 USC. §§ 348, 391, 393 10
25 US.C. §§ 371-380 _, 10
25 US.C. § 472
25 US.C. §§ 1301-1303 8, 10
42 US.C. §§ 2200 et Seq. ae
Public Law 92-261 : “ 10
Texts AND OrHFR AUTHORITIES:
Anderson, K., et al, The Educational Achievement
ce Bae of Indian Affairs (1953)........... 4
Dery, Tae Seed teste ena es
cation (1969) : 4
Cicer sa i Sas Uo Otte
1970 Toledo L. Rev. 691 6
Cohen, F., Federal Indian Law (1942) .................. 6
Coombs, L., The Educational Disadvantage of the
American Indian Student (1970) 3
Fy ESE OT HA Sie bettants Coneduiaal
Havinghurst, R., Education of Indian Children and
iene United States Office of Education
Mayer, The Lawyers, Dell Publishing Co., 1966 ....
Note, The Indian: The Forgotten American, 81
Harv.L.Rev. 1818 (1968)
O’Neil, Preferential Admissions: izing Access
To Legal Education, 1970 Tolede Lee 691 ....
President Richard M. Nixon, Message to Congress,
July 8, 1970
i Centuries of Dishonor: Legal
pean eas the American Indian, 1970
Toledo L.Rev. 847
The Indian Battle for Self-Determination 58 Cal.
L. Rev. 445 (1970)
Victoria, De Indis et De Jure Belli Relectiones
(Trans. by John Pawley Bates (1917) ............
~
-_-— ee meee “
Page
Ju the Supreme Court ot the Cinited states
Ocroper Term, 1973
No. 73-235
Maxco DeF unis, et al.,
Petitioners,
Vv.
CHARLES ODEGAARD, President of the
University of Washington, et al.,
Respondents.
Upon Certiorari from the Judgment of the
Supreme Court of Washington
BRIEF FOR AMERICAN INDIAN LAW STUDENTS
ASSOCIATION, INC. AND AMERICAN INDIAN
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AMICI CURIAE
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
This brief is submitted with consent of counsel for the
parties on behalf of the American Indian Law Students
Association, Inc., and the American Indian Lawyers
Association, Inc.
eee
te
Hid
ahs
aa
ie fi
Tat
La
an ae
We
Lae
iit: |
mel Haat
Bin es Ht Ht ith
Suh UY AY) SE lusdpypaagean ga anyeny
tie Ua ful suet 2
a Hr ; PES 3 E
S p43 Es 1 i
i
5 E38 35.
faa Went
3
is §.8 3
Head ealih
i ee
} a ibis
li
i
Hit
Soe e
Hee
aye
a
Ht
a ett al
e tp :
Me sail Ieee chi
&
:
i
s
sie
er. Le } |
Hf
eee
u giclee rt
Hil cee RRL BEE E> etre til
rc)
aitiy Ab
S
f
Hila
. ‘|
iat 33 -
ARR ST
Message to Congress,
i
%
J
2
t
R
E
.
EL]
=|
L
%
~
i
it
.
;
il
it i
Indians ha
69, 1178-1181.
a
int Hh
i
eitie,
PR Ep. 24 11
8 See, e.g., 25 U.B.C. §§ 13, 297.
9 See, eg., 25 U.S.C. §§ 231, permitting entry upon reserva-
tions to enforce health regulations.
10 Bee, e.g., 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-03.
11 See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. §§ 305-309 (a).
‘12 Bee, e.g., 25 U.S.C. §§ 348, 391, 393.
13 Bee, eg., 25 U.S.C. §§ 81, 82, 82(a), 84, limiting contracts
without the apporval of the Secretary of the Interior.
14 Bee, e.g., 25 U.S.C. §§ 371-80, which requires the approval
of the Secretary of Interior in regard to many testamentary dis-
15 See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 122.
‘16 Cf. United States v. Rogers 45 U.S. (4 How.) 567 (1846).
1725 U.S.C. §472. This Court has granted certiorari in !
Mancari v. Morton 359 F.Supp. 585 (D.C.D.N.M., 1973) to de-
termine whether the Indian Preference statutes, 25 U.S.C. §§ 44-46, |
and 472 were amended by the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1972,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq. and Public Law 92-261.
- # Ht esa
Wi $2 Halts! ba
“U1
The
aint of
and in all
v.
1966
to
Indians
a
ii
el
i
mr ly
Hi aaa i aii + ia nt A
188 USC. §3.
ce
as
| uo KIdVigaqa
For the f SO submitted
that the decision of the Washington Supreme should
be affirmed and the case be dismissed.
Dated: January 31, 1974
Hersert Becker
Bagpara A, Fix
Bruce R. Greeny
Frep L. Racspae
By:
Bruce R. Greene
Of Counsel:
California Indian Services
Native American ts Fund
American Indian Law Coat
13
APPENDIX A
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO
School of Law
1117 8. NE.
Albuquerque, N.M. 87106
Tel. (505) 277-4844
American Indian Law Center
Priue 8. DeLoria, Cuaries W. BuackwELL,
Director Associate in Law
Rosser L. Bannerr, Tosy F, Grossman,
Director of Special Projects Staff Director
January 28, 1974
Honorable Justices
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C.
|
|
i
: EF
in the program attend law throughout the
States. The program is a relatively new one in that it has
i 1967. Since that time there
been operational since J
ee ee (4) graduating classes from law schools.
Our figures show that there have been 86 Indian students
14
nf
pune
ag
bel
3
Fe
s BLT
fe
fet
’
its ae ui imu!
Tare oe A
&
rH.
3
| ee ieee
gay 23228] hae
Stee
a laa
ies aii
it GLEE ge g
a5 ted
SPT okt Pee
g
3
dFysanctby
pea
ae
g
he or
practice of law and ultimate-
t
uation the chances are ex
Semen.
pagan eg samp apa ample
9461 ‘IZ 3SNBny seujdry uoyssjuued AW
AANNOD OO3I0 NVS
Wi 301490 ‘WaldNivd
WINUC a1 WO DVeNe-AUVLON
Xia “‘V VaveUva
* Wat Widiadd
*BTUutOSTTeO
Soptpuocosg 38 Hl6T ‘Auenaqey jo Aep pz
STyuQ ow aTOJeq O09 UATOMS puke peqTuosqns
OUSWOU ANNOAA
*eTusJosTTeg Sopfpuocosyg 4e Hl6T ‘2 Auwenuqeay uo paegnoexg
*qoeum090 pue
anaq st BufoBZesojy ayqg qeyuq Aunfued jo Aqteued wsepun suepoaep |
“nl6T ‘2 Adenaqgeyg uo
eTUIOJTTeO SopTpuocosy 4B Trew seqeqs peaTuN euy UT pegtsodep predeud
ATTN eBeqsod TyTew azzte yaTM pue peTees usyQ sem sdoTsaue yoRg
hOTQ@6 UCgBuTYSEem faTQQe~a>g
G6TQ6 UogBuTYseM feTQ9eeg SuTPTTNG e30H OOF
uogZutysem jo Ayytsaeatuyn YALSAATAS % GNOWVIG ‘ALLSIOAT
BSuTPltng uofzeuyspupwpy 2TT DYUSEGNYSLS *S DIVHO
NOS'TIM °G SaWVS NOSYSAI “TI STAT
IVYSNSD ARNYOLLV ‘NOLYOD aavIS GNOWVIG agsor
:SMOTTOJ se ATaeATQoOedSar sesserppe Yyons YyoRSs OF pesseuppe ‘uaqse
-srey peweu sesseuppe yore doJ edoTeause oyeuedes e& ut joazayy satdoo
aeayuy BupToetd Aq aeetung fotuy ‘*ouy SuoTyepfoossy suadmey] uetpuy uedyT
-Jowy pue ‘our ‘uot eToOOssy sguepnygs Me] UBTpUL UedOTUueWy UOJ Jaytug
aug PeAUesS [ ‘“BpfusosTTeg ‘oVetq ues Jo Aqunog ayy uy pefotduea
pue aZe jo sueek gt wzeao *saqeqg peqgTug eyuq JO usZzTqQTo e& we JT
:sfkes pue sasodep ‘usoms AtTnp Buteq ‘ouzewoy auUucAZ
‘
TIVW AG SOIAWTS AO LIAVGIddV
aa ngenowsHnonET D GD
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.