|
U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered federal agencies to restore funding that continues to be frozen.  A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to thaw any remnants of a grant-funding freeze, finding that federal agencies have violated the court's "clear and unambiguous" temporary restraining order. U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. of the District of Rhode Island granted an emergency enforcement order sought Feb. 7 by attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia. The attorneys general had submitted evidence that, despite the restraining order McConnell issued last month, federal agencies are still withholding funds from certain grant recipients. "The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud," McConnell wrote. "But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud. The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO." McConnell said agencies can petition for targeted relief from the TRO if they can show they have specific legal authority to pause funding. But his order Monday also quoted from the 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Maness v. Meyers: "Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect." McConnell ordered federal agencies to "immediately restore withheld funds, including those federal funds appropriated in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act," two funding sources the plaintiff-states cited as still frozen in their motion for emergency enforcement. Three weeks into the Trump administration, Democratic attorneys general have now secured court orders temporarily blocking the president's executive actions on federal funding and birthright citizenship. Early Saturday, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York granted 19 state attorneys general's motion for a temporary restraining order blocking Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency from accessing U.S. Treasury Department payment systems. "In every case we’ve filed to date, state attorneys general have successfully restrained the president’s abuse of executive power—and we will continue to hold him accountable; our democratic institutions depend on it," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a prepared statement. On Monday, 22 attorneys general sued the National Institutes of Health to block the Trump administration from capping reimbursements to research institutions. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
0 Comments
"Federal tribal programs are not racial or preference programs, and indeed these federal funds and programs are legally mandated under the trust and treaty obligations owed to us,  A federal judge in Washington, D.C. granted a temporary restraining order Monday blocking the Office of Management and Budget from pausing federal financial assistance programs, including critical funding for tribal nations and Native-serving nonprofits Indian Country. In a court order, U.S. District Judge Loren L. Alikhan wrote that OMB's Jan. 27 memo ordering federal agencies to freeze disbursements was likely "arbitrary and capricious" and would cause irreparable harm to grant recipients. The ruling comes after a temporary restraining order last Friday from a Rhode Island federal court protecting funding in 22 Democratic-led states and D.C., though questions remained about its application to tribal nations and organizations in other states. In yesterday’s order, Judge Alikhan noted that granting another TRO was necessary to provide comprehensive protection for recipients potentially not covered by the earlier order. The court actions come amid mounting concerns from tribal leaders about the potential misclassification of Native programs under recent executive orders targeting diversity and environmental initiatives. In a Feb. 2 letter to the Trump administration and congressional leaders, a coalition of tribal organizations emphasized that federal Indian programs stem from sovereign political relationships, not racial preferences. "Federal tribal programs are not racial or preference programs, and indeed these federal funds and programs are legally mandated under the trust and treaty obligations owed to us," the organizations wrote. The funding uncertainty for tribes extends beyond direct federal assistance. The Alliance for Indigenous Prosperity (AIP) launched last week to defend the Small Business Administration's 8(a) Program, which provides crucial contracting opportunities for tribally-owned businesses. The coalition formed in response to legislative proposals in both chambers of Congress that would eliminate these contracting set-asides under the guise of "ending racism in federal contracting." "The SBA 8(a) Program is not just a tool for federal contracting—it is a lifeline for economic sovereignty, innovation, and growth for indigenous enterprises," Kevin J. Allis, president of Thunderbird Strategic and a key AIP leader, said in a statement. Both court orders come as agencies grapple with mixed signals from the administration. While OMB Acting Director Matthew J. Vaeth rescinded the controversial memo on January 29, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted the underlying executive orders targeting diversity and environmental programs "remain in full force and effect." Judge Alikhan's ruling requires OMB to notify agencies they cannot implement the funding freeze and mandates a status report on compliance by February 7. The parties must also propose a schedule for preliminary injunction proceedings, which could determine longer-term protections for tribal and other federal funding recipients. A federal judge early Saturday blocked Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury Department records that contain sensitive personal data such as Social Security and bank account numbers for millions of Americans.  U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued the preliminary injunction after 19 Democratic attorneys general sued President Donald Trump. The case, filed in federal court in New York City, alleges the Trump administration allowed Musk's team access to the Treasury Department's central payment system in violation of federal law.
The payment system handles tax refunds, Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits and much more, sending out trillions of dollars every year while containing an expansive network of Americans' personal and financial data. Engelmayer, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also said anyone prohibited from having access to the sensitive information since Jan. 20 must immediately destroy all copies of material downloaded from Treasury Department systems. He set a hearing for Feb. 14. The White House previously did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit being filed. Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, was created to discover and eliminate what the Trump administration has deemed to be wasteful government spending. DOGE's access to Treasury records, as well as its inspection of various government agencies, has ignited widespread concern among critics over the increasing power of Musk, while supporters have cheered at the idea of reining in bloated government finances. Musk has made fun of criticism of DOGE on his X social media platform while saying it is saving taxpayers millions of dollars. New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office filed the lawsuit, said DOGE's access to the Treasury Department's data raises security problems and the possibility for an illegal freeze in federal funds. "This unelected group, led by the world's richest man, is not authorized to have this information, and they explicitly sought this unauthorized access to illegally block payments that millions of Americans rely on, payments for health care, child care and other essential programs," James said in a video message released by her office Friday. James, a Democrat who has been one of Trump's chief antagonists, said the president does not have the power to give away American's private information to anyone he chooses, and he cannot cut federal payments approved by Congress. Also on the lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The suit alleges that DOGE's access to the Treasury records could interfere with funding already appropriated by Congress, which would exceed the Treasury Department's statutory authority. The case also argues that the DOGE access violates federal administrative law and the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. It also accuses Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent of changing the department's longstanding policy for protecting sensitive personally identifiable information and financial information to allow Musk's DOGE team access to its payment systems. "This decision failed to account for legal obligations to protect such data and ignored the privacy expectations of federal fund recipients," including states, veterans, retirees, and taxpayers, the lawsuit says. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said it's not clear what DOGE is doing with the information in the Treasury systems. "This is the largest data breach in American history," Tong said in a statement Friday. "DOGE is an unlawfully constituted band of renegade tech bros combing through confidential records, sensitive data and critical payment systems. What could go wrong?" The Treasury Department has said the review is about assessing the integrity of the system and that no changes are being made. According to two people familiar with the process, Musk's team began its inquiry looking for ways to suspend payments made by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which Trump and Musk are attempting to dismantle. The two people spoke with The Associated Press on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. Separately, Democratic lawmakers are seeking a Treasury Department investigation of DOGE's access to the government's payment system. Also, labor unions and advocacy groups have sued to block the payments system review over concerns about its legality. A judge in Washington on Thursday temporarily restricted access to two employees with "read only" privileges.  A group of Native Americans were allegedly lined up for questioning during an ICE raid in Arizona, stoking fears that members of this group are being profiled as the Trump administration ramps up its immigration crackdown.
The episode in question took place on January 22, according to state Sen. Theresa Hatathlie, who detailed the account given to her by a member of the Navajo Nation. She said that during the raid at her niece's workplace in Scottsdale 14 people were lined up for questioning, and she believed eight of them were Native American. One of the women managed to text her aunt before her phone was taken away. After then she kept saying "I'm Navajo," according to Hatathlie. She didn't have any tribal documentation on her but her mother was told about the incident and she sent her daughter a picture of her Certificate of Indian Blood. She was eventually released but had a panic attack after. State Sen. Hatathlie said she has heard similar stories across the state, and that's why she's recommending Native Americans to carry a copy of their Certificate of Indian Blood with them. She then claimed the incidents have to do with racial profiling, because she doesn't hear similar stories from other ethnic groups. "And if you look at all of the pictures or the stories, they all involve people who have brown skin." Officials from the Navajo Nation told CNN last week that at least 15 Indigenous people in the southwest U.S. have reported being questioned or detained by immigration officers. Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren confirmed in a statement that his office has received multiple reports of "negative, and sometimes traumatizing, experiences with federal agents targeting undocumented immigrants." Nygren went on to say that "it's best to be prepared, and we are advising Navajo citizensto carry state-issued identification, such as a driver's license or other picture identification if available. Having your state ID is crucial, and if you possess a CIB (Certificate of Indian Blood), it can provide an additional layer of reassurance" The Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico also announced through a statement that a member was confronted by ICE agents in late January and was asked for ID — first in Spanish, although the member spoke English. However, not even Certificates of Indian Blood (CIBs) or state-issued IDs seem to be deterring agents. "Despite possessing Certificates of Indian Blood (CIBs) and state-issued IDs, several individuals have been detained or questioned by ICE agents who do not recognize these documents as valid proof of citizenship," said Crystalyne Curley, speaker of the Navajo Nation Council in a statement reported by Axios. ICE, in turn, said that "should the extremely rare occasion arise where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement might need to work with tribal partners on an immigration-related case, ICE will attempt to consult and deconflict with the FBI, Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals and tribal leaders as a plan is developed and prior to any targeted law enforcement actions." Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI)"CDC Data Removal Threatens Native Health, Violates Treaties"2/5/2025 Seattle-based Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), which tracks health data for tribes and urban Indian communities, demanded the CDC immediately restore the information  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stripped crucial health data from its website that tribal nations rely on to protect their citizens’ health, prompting immediate pushback from Native health leaders.
On Tuesday, the Seattle-based Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), which tracks health data for tribes and urban Indian communities, demanded the CDC immediately restore the information. The removed data, which covers topics including gender, vaccines and climate change, disappeared from the CDC website between Jan. 31, and Feb. 4. UIHI leaders say this sudden removal violates federal obligations to share health information with tribes. “The decision to remove essential public health data is a violation of treaty rights,” Abigail Echo-Hawk (Pawnee), executive director of UIHI, said in a statement. “As tribal public health authorities, tribes and (Tribal Epidemiology Centers) must have unrestricted access to public health data to fulfill our mission. The CDC’s actions undermine our ability to respond to urgent health crises that disproportionately impact American Indian and Alaska Native communities.” UIHI serves as one of 12 Tribal Epidemiology Centers that track and respond to health issues affecting 574 federally recognized tribes, 41 urban Indian health organizations, and more than 9.7 million American Indians and Alaska Natives across the country. Federal law requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to share health data with tribes and their health authorities. A 2022 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that HHS failed to comply with the required data-sharing policies, which led to reforms to address these issues and uphold treaty and trust responsibilities. Echo-Hawk said the CDC’s recent removal of public health data directly contradicts the tribal feedback that shaped these reforms and the federal government’s responsibilities to the tribes. “UIHI stands with all public health experts and agencies that are demanding that CDC immediately restore access to these datasets,” Echo-Hawk said. “We also urge HHS to engage in meaningful government-to-government consultation with tribal nations to prevent future disruptions.” The data removal has sparked legal action as well. On Feb. 4, Doctors for America (DFA), a nonpartisan organization representing over 27,000 physicians and medical trainees, filed a federal lawsuit against the CDC and four other federal agencies in a Washington D.C. district court. The lawsuit alleges the data removal violated the Paperwork Reduction Act’s requirements and demands the immediate restoration of the removed health data. According to the complaint, the CDC posted statements that its “website is being modified to comply with President Trump’s Executive Orders” but provided no other justification for removing the public health information. The CDC’s actions have raised alarms beyond Indian Country. "Deleting data of groups of people who are clearly not prioritized by this administration is essentially erasing them," Angela Rasmussen, a prominent US virologist told Agence France-Presse. "It's going to cause people to suffer, and die." Nancy Krieger, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard’s TH Chan School of Public Health, told The Guardian the CDC’s actions have “international ramifications” that distort the science base. “Science is disappearing from US websites, the work of government-sponsored science is disappearing, the datasets are disappearing,” Krieger said. The data removal coincides with a broader pause on public information across federal health agencies. In a Jan. 21 memo to HHS operating divisions, Acting Secretary Dorothy Fink directed agencies — including the Indian Health Service — to halt regulations, guidance, announcements, press releases, social media posts and website posts until approved by a political appointee. 
On January 14, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program released "Violence Against American Indian or Alaska Native Females, 2021-2023 Special Report" on the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer at https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov. This special report examines violent and sexual crimes committed against victims reported as American Indian or Alaska Native females to the FBI’s UCR Program. This does not mean the offenses occurred on tribal lands.
This study uses National Incident-Based Reporting System data from 2021 to 2023 about female victims of violent and sexual offenses who are American Indian and Alaska Native and their relationship to the offender, weapons used against the victims, their ages, and location types where the incidents occurred. This study examines the violent and sexual crimes of murder, aggravated assault, rape, sexual assault with an object, sodomy, fondling, and intimidation. The reported information in this study shows many American Indian and Alaska Native females are victimized by their intimate partner for violent and sexual offenses. From 2021 to 2023, law enforcement reported 25,817 incidents of violent crime and 8,575 incidents of sexual crimes against victims who are American Indian or Alaska Native females. Kirkland was a part of the White House staff during Trump’s first term, serving as special assistant to the president  William “Billy” Kirkland III, citizen of the Navajo Nation, has been nominated for U.S. Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs by President Donald Trump.
His nomination was received by the Senate on Monday, Feb. 3, and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for review. His nomination was welcomed by Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren, who said Kirkland will be an excellent choice for Indian Country. “I am pleased that the Trump administration has selected someone of his high caliber,” Nygren said to Native News Online. “Mr. Kirkland is well-positioned to accomplish significant work for both the administration and Indian Country.” After Trump’s inauguration last month, Kirkland attended a reception in the nation’s capital with tribal leaders. He was honored by the Coalition of Large Tribes (COLT) during the reception. “Anytime we can get Indian Country more involved, whether it’s here in Washington, or in the states, we definitely want to do so,” Kirkland said at the event. “I know the White House will continue to have an open door policy with all the tribal nations.” Kirkland was raised in Georgia and graduated from the University of Georgia with a B.A. in political science and government. Kirkland has led major Senate campaigns, including David Perdue in 2014 and Kelly Loeffler in 2020. He also served as a senior advisor to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign in Georgia and later worked on the White House Inauguration Committee before becoming a senior strategist for Vice President Mike Pence. Former Navajo Nation Vice President Myron Lizer, who was also considered for the position, voiced his support for Kirkland’s nomination. “Billy Kirkland is a friend of mine. He had the inside track as he worked in the White House. I expect Billy to be a solid pick for (Assistant Secretary). I also expect to continue to have access to BIA and offer some solid recommendations as I know Billy and I have worked really well. I will hold him to truly working hard for Navajo and Indian Country,” Lizer said on Tuesday. If confirmed by the Senate, Kirkland will replace Bryan Newland (Bay Mills Indian Community), who left the position at the end of the Biden-Harris administration.  The nationwide injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland is more permanent than the 14-day temporary restraining order issued last month by a federal judge in Seattle. A federal judge in Maryland has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman heard arguments Wednesday over a request by five pregnant undocumented women to block Trump's Day-1 executive order seeking to redefine the meaning of the 14th Amendment to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship. "The denial of the precious right to citizenship will cause irreparable harm," Judge Boardman said in handing down her order. "It has been said the right to U.S. citizenship is a right no less precious than life or liberty. If the court does not enjoin enforcement of the executive order, children subject to the order will be denied the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship and their parents will face instability." "A nationwide injunction is appropriate and necessary because it concerns citizenship," Judge Boardman said. The ruling comes two weeks after a federal judge in Seattle criticized the Department of Justice for attempting to defend what he called a "blatantly unconstitutional" order and issued a temporary restraining order. In her ruling, Judge Boardman said Trump's executive order "conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment." "The U.S. Supreme court has resoundingly rejected the president's interpretation of the citizenship clause," Boardman said. "In fact, no court has endorsed the president's interpretation, and this court will not be the first." She added that the plaintiffs would "very likely" succeed on the merits in their case against Trump's order. During the hearing, plaintiffs' attorney Joseph Mead called the DOJ's argument a "reimagination of the 14th Amendment phrase 'subject jurisdiction.'" "The executive order's departure from settled law is so abrupt ... it is such a departure from what we've been doing for over a century," Mead argued. "Being a citizen is the foundation for so many rights." The five women, along with two nonprofits, filed the lawsuit against the Trump administration last month, arguing that Trump's executive order violated the constitution and multiple federal laws. "If allowed to go into effect, the Executive Order would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country, including the children of Individual Plaintiffs and Members," the lawsuit said. Lawyers for the Department of Justice have claimed that Trump's executive order attempts to resolve "prior misimpressions" of the 14th Amendment, arguing that birthright citizenship creates a "perverse incentive for illegal immigration." If permitted, Trump's executive order would preclude U.S. citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants or immigrants whose presence in the United States is lawful but temporary. "Text, history, and precedent support what common sense compels: the Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to, inter alia: the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws," DOJ lawyers argued. The executive order had already been put on hold by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle. "I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind," said Coughenour last month when he issued his temporary restraining order. "Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?" Because Judge Coughenour's order only blocked the executive order temporarily, Judge Boardman had been asked to consider a longer-lasting preliminary injunction against the executive order. With Trump vowing to appeal a ruling that finds his executive order unconstitutional, Wednesday's preliminary injunction could be his first opportunity to appeal to a higher court. Members of the Trump administration spent months crafting this executive order with the understanding that it would inevitably be challenged and potentially blocked by lower courts, according to sources familiar with their planning. While the lawsuit challenging the executive order in Seattle was brought by four state attorneys general, the five pregnant undocumented women who filed the Maryland case argued that they would be uniquely harmed by the order. With individual states and undocumented women suffering different harms under the order, the cases could present different reasons to justify blocking the order. Monica -- a medical doctor from Venezuela with temporary protected status who joined the lawsuit under a pseudonym -- said she joined the suit because she fears her future child will become stateless, with her home country facing an ongoing humanitarian, political and economic crisis. "I'm 12 weeks pregnant. I should be worried about the health of my child. I should be thinking about that primarily, and instead my husband and I are stressed, we're anxious and we're depressed about the reality that my child may not be able to become a U.S. citizen," she said.  One might say that legal services regulation is experiencing a renaissance — albeit a very slow moving and unevenly distributed one.
Over the last decade, a growing number of states have rethought certain aspects of legal regulation — among them, unauthorized-practice-of-law rules. Prohibitions on the unauthorized practice of law are intended to protect the public from unqualified, unauthorized and unscrupulous legal services providers. Nobody disputes that this is a valid and desirable regulatory objective. Yet there are problems with the prevailing unauthorized practice of law framework that purports to meet this objective. By and large, under current state unauthorized practice of law rules, licensed attorneys are the only professionals allowed to deliver legal services. Counter to what one would experience in a modern health care setting, for example, where there are a wide range of service providers with different scopes of practice, in legal services it is attorneys or nothing. This would be less of a problem if attorney providers were meeting the needs of everyone who required legal help, but they are not. For many, attorney help is inaccessible. The high numbers of litigants navigating state court systems without attorneys is well documented. Many self-represented litigants find themselves in this situation because of the costs — perceived or actual — of hiring an attorney. And one's ability to afford an attorney is not as straightforward an issue as it might initially seem. In the context of subsidized legal services, the hard income cutoffs in service eligibility determinations create an arbitrary and false distinction between those who cannot afford attorney services and those who can. The 2022 Legal Services Corp. justice gap study, and others, illustrates how affordability is an issue for those above the federal Poverty Guidelines.[1] Some states are addressing the legal services gap among this so-called missing middle by allowing other types of legal providers, not just attorneys, to offer specific legal services in certain circumstances. While these providers are not licensed attorneys, they are educated, trained and licensed to deliver legal advice in limited circumstances, and in limited case types. Colorado is the most recent state to open the profession in this way, joining Arizona, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah and Washington.[2] Programs of this type are also under consideration in other states. Each state program is unique, but together they represent an opportunity to expand affordable and accessible legal services. Colorado may be the latest state to move toward a more responsive system of regulating legal services, but it will not be the last. More and more states should rethink the century-old assumptions that shape our current regulatory rules — and work to bring this system into the 21st century. Background There is a major flaw in how we traditionally think about one's ability to afford an attorney. First, income is a poor proxy for spending power. Behind income are debts and liabilities, which for many people can be considerable. It is easy to assume that individuals with a higher annual income are able to afford an attorney. But saddled with $200,000 in student loan debt along with housing, child education, senior care and other recurring monthly expenses, one's spending power becomes much more limited. One might — and many do — argue that this hypothetical earner is better positioned than lower-income earners to leverage credit or borrow from another source to hire an attorney. This assumption is really an expectation that the legal profession places on certain consumer segments — mandating the exclusive use of private attorneys to achieve justice, in spite of what a consumer can or will pay. This kind of dictate might make sense if all legal matters were of the same level of complexity, required the same tasks, and demanded the same level of human skill and expertise. But that is simply not the case. To be sure, there are complex legal issues that necessitate sophisticated representation, specialized expertise, and expert litigation skills. There is little debate that these kind of cases and issues require a qualified attorney. Yet there are some legal matters — more straightforward issues and streamlined case types — that professionals who are not attorneys can be educated and trained to handle competently. Just as nurse practitioners can practice medicine within their limited purview, so can new tiers of professionals in the law. To repurpose the claim levied by some opponents: No, you would not seek out a nurse to perform your brain surgery. But you would — and undoubtedly most of us do — seek out a nurse to give you a vaccine. Colorado's Licensed Legal Paraprofessionals Have Entered the Profession States are calling these new providers by a variety of names. In Washington, they are limited licensed legal technicians. In Utah, they are licensed paralegal practitioners. In Arizona, they are legal paraprofessionals. We use the term "allied legal professionals" as a placeholder until stakeholders can coalesce around a uniform national title. Now, in Colorado, licensed legal paraprofessionals, or LLPs, will soon be able to practice law in marital dissolution, parentage and allocation of parental responsibility cases. While Colorado's program is one of the newest to be implemented, the state's exploration of this issue goes back to 2015 when the Colorado Supreme Court charged a subcommittee to study Washington's limited licensed legal technician program and related efforts. The subcommittee work was paused but revived in early 2020 when the court established the Paraprofessionals and Legal Services Subcommittee and tasked it to explore the creation of a regulatory regime for the practice of law by licensed qualified paraprofessionals. From there, the PALS Subcommittee built out a proposal for LLPs operating in family law. Many aspects of the proposal that the subcommittee submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court mimicked programs operating or being considered in other states. For example, among the states that have these allied legal professional programs, family law is the most included case type — specifically divorce and dissolution, child custody and support, domestic violence and paternity. The tasks these providers have been authorized to perform is generally consistent with other state approaches: advising clients on which forms to use; preparing, filing and reviewing opposing party court documents; participating in mediation; etc. Notably, Colorado LLPs are only authorized to provide limited in-court representation. They may stand next to and communicate with clients in court proceedings, but they can only react to questions posed by the court — they may not address the tribunal otherwise. Colorado is not the only state that adopted this kind of reactive representation model, but many states are moving toward authorizing full representation, in recognition of the documented struggles self-represented litigants have in navigating hearings. Leveraging Existing Expertise and Trusted Paralegal Professionals It is not uncommon for attorneys who learn of these new programs to express concern that untrained individuals will end up doing more harm to legal consumers than if the consumer had no legal help. Self-representation is devastating for many who try it, and we know from study after study that outcomes are negatively affected when one does not have legal help. But more importantly, education and training are hallmarks of each and every allied legal professional program that is active or under consideration. In Colorado, prior to sitting for the required examination, LLP applicants must have received either:
Alternatively, under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 207.8(4), an applicant is not required to meet these educational qualifications if they have worked the equivalent of three full-time years in employment constituting substantive law-related practical experience, which must include the equivalent of one full-time year focused on Colorado family law, during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing the application.[3] Further, to obtain a license, Colorado's LLP will have to complete 1,500 hours of substantive law-related practical experience, including 500 hours of experience in Colorado family law. Colorado's program, and many others, are designed to appeal to paralegals, who already handle a substantial amount of client interaction, often acting as a buffer for attorneys by addressing basic inquiries or soothing agitated clients and even meeting with clients without attorneys present to advance cases and to provide clients with regular — and requested — law firm contact. They perform various essential tasks for which they are well trained, and as their experience grows, attorney oversight is, in reality, often reduced. It is not a leap — or even a baby step — to imagine traditional paralegals with additional training providing limited legal advice in select case types. Given the experience already possessed by many of the paralegals who might pursue licensure under Colorado's LLP program, and the substantial educational and experiential requirements of the program, the claim of attorneys in opposition to this change in regulatory rules — namely, that an unwitting public will be subject to unqualified help — is an increasingly tough sell. Every state with a program in place now or in the near future has seen fit to establish significant standards for practitioners who are not attorneys. How States Can Emulate Colorado's Model State legal regulators can follow the example set by Colorado and others by first exploring the national landscape of these allied legal professional programs, along with the emerging data on how these programs are operating.[4] The experiences of other states are an invaluable starting point. Modifying state regulatory rules to authorize these programs takes leadership, from the bench and bar — and this leadership signals to the public a willingness to modernize the practice of law to better serve consumers. These programs also require a longer-term commitment by state legal regulators. Introducing a new tier of providers into a historically closed-off profession will take time. New service delivery models do not take hold overnight. The good news is that there is a first-tier audience for these new provider roles: paralegals. Many currently practicing paralegals would consider the expansion and potential of their roles and could transition almost immediately if already qualified through their educational and experiential backgrounds. Looking to the future and the evolution of these programs, instead of limiting allied legal professionals to family law cases, housing issues and debt collection, states could expand their scope to other areas of law, such as estate planning and probate. A recent survey from Caring.com echoes what previous studies have shown — approximately 67% of Americans do not have an estate plan, and yet each of us is going to need one someday.[5] States might consider imposing regulatory requirements such as additional education and experience, as referenced above. Other safeguards might include requiring allied legal professionals to acquire credentials and training similar to that of attorneys, such as periodic CLE courses including ethics, and assessments for character and fitness. Washington, Arizona and Utah have all instituted a licensure exam. In states where allied legal professional programs have been approved, it would be beneficial to also have judicial education programs on the role of the new professionals so that the permissions and parameters of the representation are understood by all. Ultimately, expanding the pool of legal professionals who can help meet people's urgent legal needs will increase access to justice by providing a new, more affordable tier of legal services. Americans often feel priced out of legal counsel and the only legitimate alternative for average earners who do not qualify for legal aid has been to represent themselves. Millions are in need of services that complement the work of attorneys, and states can accomplish this by opening the profession to new tiers of practitioners. Natalie Anne Knowlton is a regulatory innovation adviser and Janet Drobinske is a senior legal assistant at the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. "Perspectives" is a regular feature written by guest authors on access to justice issues. To pitch article ideas, email [email protected].  The Oklahoma State University College of Osteopathic Medicine at the Cherokee Nation (OSU-COM at Cherokee Nation) achieved a historic milestone on May 16, 2024, as its inaugural class of 46 medical students graduated. This marks the first graduating class from a tribally affiliated medical school in the United States.
The commencement ceremony, held at the Mabee Center in Tulsa, celebrated graduates from both OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine and its Cherokee Nation affiliate. Dr. Kayse Shrum, president of Oklahoma State University, spoke at the ceremony, highlighting the program's dual purpose: improving health outcomes in rural Oklahoma and expanding the medical school. The graduating class reflects a significant increase in Native American representation in the medical field. Approximately 20% of the OSU-COM graduates identify as Native American, a substantial number compared to the national average of less than 1%. Notably, 35% of graduates from OSU-COM at Cherokee Nation matched with residency programs in rural or tribal settings. Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. emphasized the importance of this achievement, recognizing both the resilience of Cherokee ancestors and the promise these new doctors hold. "Their dedication addresses the critical shortage of rural doctors while increasing Native representation in our healthcare system," Hoskin said in a statement. "This ensures culturally competent care for generations to come." Training physicians to serve rural and underserved communities is a key mission of the OSU Center for Health Sciences, particularly considering Oklahoma's low national health outcome rankings. "These graduates …. embody the values of service, compassion, and excellence shared by both the Cherokee Nation and Oklahoma State University," Dr. Johnny Stephens, president of OSU-CHS, said in a statement. The nine Native American graduates in this first class represent a significant increase over the national average. There are currently only about 2,500 Native American physicians serving a population of nearly 850,000 doctors nationwide. This translates to just 0.3% representation, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Some specialties like endocrinology, neonatal medicine, and vascular surgery have zero Native American representation. This inaugural class is just the beginning. Future classes at OSU-COM at Cherokee Nation are projected to have between 16% and 30% of students coming from tribal backgrounds. Native medical students represent 11 different tribes and hail from 46 Oklahoma counties, Natasha Bray, the medical school’s dean told STAT. Additionally, the graduating class at OSU's main campus in Tulsa includes 15 more Indigenous doctors. This collective effort signifies a crucial step towards diversifying the medical workforce and addressing the critical need for physicians in rural and tribal communities. |
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.