Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
|
Total |
||||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2019 | (b) 2020 | (c) 2021 | (d) 2022 | (e) 2023 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 12,901,033 | 17,314,327 | 14,822,919 | 17,939,492 | 20,925,046 | 83,902,817 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf .... | 0 | |||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | 0 | |||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 12,901,033 | 17,314,327 | 14,822,919 | 17,939,492 | 20,925,046 | 83,902,817 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f) .. | 7,289,650 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 76,613,167 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2019 | (b) 2020 | (c) 2021 | (d) 2022 | (e) 2023 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 12,901,033 | 17,314,327 | 14,822,919 | 17,939,492 | 20,925,046 | 83,902,817 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 1,476,662 | 1,537,528 | 1,132,902 | 1,274,389 | 1,596,737 | 7,018,218 |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 90,921,035 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal
year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2019 | (b) 2020 | (c) 2021 | (d) 2022 | (e) 2023 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513 ..... | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5 | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2019 | (b) 2020 | (c) 2021 | (d) 2022 | (e) 2023 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included on line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 0.015 of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by 0.035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | 1 | |
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
2 | |
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | 3 | |
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | 4 | |
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required - provide details in Part VI) | 5 | |
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | 6 | |
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | 7 | |
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
8 | |
| 9 Distributable amount for 2023 from Section C, line 6 | 9 | |
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | 10 | |
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2023 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2023 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2023 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2023 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI).
See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2023: | ||||
| a From 2018....... | ||||
| b From 2019....... | ||||
| c From 2020....... | ||||
| d From 2021....... | ||||
| e From 2022....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2023 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2018 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2023 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2023 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2023, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2023. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2024. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2020..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2021..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2022..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2023..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | 23017437 |
| Software Version: | 2023v6.0 |
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Form 990, Part III, Line 4a | The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is the oldest and largest non-profit law firm dedicated to serving the legal advocacy needs of tribal nations and their communities across the country. NARF assists in the evolution, assertion, and defense of tribal sovereignty, and is considered the premier thought leader in the field of Federal Indian Law. Continuing threats to tribal nations, their interests, and their constitutionally guaranteed rights affirm the need for the casework and programming of NARF. NARF is guided by five mission priorities which include the preservation of tribal existence, the protection of tribal natural resources, the promotion of human rights, the accountability of governments to Native Americans, the development of Indian law, and by extension, the education of the public about contemporary Indian rights, laws, and issues. A board of directors consisting of tribal and indigenous leaders from across the country guides the direction of NARF to the fulfillment of our mission in protecting tribal interests, and our litigation management committee alongside our corporate officers ensures that the programs and cases NARF engages in will continue to effectively advocate under the umbrella of Federal Indian law for the benefit of tribal nations. FY2024 was a year of continued growth for our organization, and an opportunity to see many successful assertions of tribal sovereignty. The development of new coalitions of legal advocates, in-house tribal general counsels, and academics assures that NARF will continue to be agile and prepared to assist tribal nations with their ongoing legal needs and challenges. This report will highlight a few of the programs and case updates from FY2024. NARF Programs - Tribal Supreme Court Project The Tribal Supreme Court Project is a program spearheaded by the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) that consists of a coalition of over 200 attorneys, academics, Indian Law and U.S. Supreme Court practitioners, tribal in-house attorneys, and other legal organizations. The project recognizes that a single Supreme Court decision, good or bad, has the potential to benefit or adversely impact all tribal nations, and so the project coordinates, strategizes, and provides critical resources to tribes and individuals whose cases may potentially appear before the court. The project began in 2001 when American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes were losing almost 80% of their cases in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). As a critical resource to tribal nations, the project coordinates and focuses resources to improve advocacy and results in Tribal SCOTUS cases and has improved the win-loss ratio for tribes by assisting in over 40 cases decided by the SCOTUS and dozens more that the SCOTUS declined to hear. One example of the project's success is seen in the Haaland v. Brackeen (2022) case which involved the validity of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The project worked directly and closely with the 4 Tribal parties to the case and the U.S. Solicitor General's Office and we coordinated 21 separate amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs filed in support of the Tribes and the United States, including amicus briefs of a collective 497 tribes and 62 tribal organizations; a collective 23 states and the District of Columbia; and a collective 87 members of the U.S. Congress. The project also hosted or participated in 4 moot courts for the tribes' arguing counsel to assist them in practicing, strategizing, and polishing their oral arguments, with the resulting work helping to secure a 7-2 SCOTUS decision upholding the ICWA, an even more triumphant victory because less than a decade before, the SCOTUS had ruled against tribal interests in its most previous ICWA case. - Judicial Selection Project The goal of the Judicial Selection Project is to increase the representation of Native Americans in the federal and state judiciaries. To that end, the Project helps recruit and support qualified Native candidates for federal and state judicial appointments. The Project works with the White House to promote better Native American representation in the federal judiciary and the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to ensure that nominees are asked about their experience with Indian tribes and their understanding of federal Indian law during confirmation proceedings. Project staff also participate in several coalitions that work to increase demographic and professional diversity in the judiciary. The Project also evaluates the records of judicial nominees on their knowledge of Indian issues. The analysis and conclusions are shared with stakeholders and federal decision-makers in relation to their decision whether to support or oppose a particular nomination. The Project also seeks to educate the federal judiciary about tribal issues, educating tribal leaders about the federal judiciary and the judicial nomination process, and reaching out to elected officials and the public at large about the need for Native American federal judges and judges who understand the unique legal status of Indian tribes. There are approximately 39 vacancies in the federal judiciary. NARF will seek to work with the new Administration to continue to ensure that qualified Native candidates are considered and nominated to fill vacancies on the federal bench. In the next four years, we also anticipate increased focus on state level vacancies - World Intellectual Property Organization Instruments on Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Cultural Expressions NARF represents NCAI regarding the ongoing negotiations for a potential international instrument or instruments to protect various types of Indigenous Peoples' intellectual property, including Traditional Knowledge (TK), Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRAATK), and Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCE). The United States has been participating in these negotiations at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) since 2000, and since 2010, the negotiations have centered on the three potential instruments' draft text. The U.S. Department of State has delegated authority to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for these negotiations, but prior to 2023/2024 neither the PTO, the State Department, nor any other federal agency had ever consulted with American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes regarding the negotiations. |
| Form 990, Part III, Line 4a | At its 2016 Annual Convention, NCAI passed a resolution calling for such consultation. The PTO and other federal agencies conducted the first listening sessions with Tribes on this matter at NCAI's 2017 Mid-Year Conference and Annual Convention. In May 2017, NARF and the University of Colorado Law School hosted a drafting session on the WIPO TCE instrument. With NCAI's approval, NARF took a proposed draft of new TCE provisions to the 34th WIPO session in Geneva, Switzerland in June 2017. The WIPO Indigenous Caucus approved the draft and some of the text from it was introduced into the draft TCE instrument. Work in FY2024 included: January-February 2024: After over 20 years, USPTO finally initiated formal tribal consultation on the WIPO negotiations in October 2023. NARF represented NCAI in the webinar portion of the consultation on January 19 and 23, 2024, and prepared written comments that were submitted February 23, 2024. 68 * April 2024: NCAI delivered an intervention at the UNPFII Session requesting a recommendation for ensuring effective Indigenous participation in the Diplomatic Conference on Genetic Resources. May 13-24, 2024: Diplomatic Conference on Genetic Resources: Historic adoption of a treaty that includes provisions for Indigenous Peoples, such as the disclosure of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in patent applications. The U.S. has not yet signed the treaty. NARF represented NCAI in the negotiations at the Diplomatic Conference. September-October 2024: NCAI prepared positions on the WIPO Design Law Treaty to be discussed at the Diplomatic Conference in Saudi Arabia (November 11-22, 2024), focusing on disclosure of traditional knowledge and the control of Indigenous designs in publicly accessible databases. NARF also represented NCAI in a one-day WIPO stocktaking session in Geneva on November 29, 2024, to discuss outcomes from the GRATK Treaty Diplomatic Conference, and in a week-long negotiating session December 2-6, 2024, which resumed negotiations on the TK and TCEs texts. Negotiations on the TK and TCEs text will continue in Geneva in March 2025. This work is ongoing. NARF Initiatives/Coalitions - Homelands Coalition For more than 50 years, the Native American Rights Fund ("NARF") has been the premiere legal advocate and thought leader for Tribal Nations in the United States. Our impact litigation, coupled with companion projects and programs, protect the inherent sovereignty of Tribal Nations and occupy a much-needed space in the field of federal Indian law and policy. Protecting sacred places, lands, and water across the country has long been a pillar of NARF's work. Two of our five organizational priorities have been to Protect Tribal Natural Resources and to Preserve Tribal Existence, each dependent on tribes' ability to maintain strong relationships with their homelands. Our reputation, built on over 50 years of leadership supporting Tribal Nations, enables us to use existing relationships to find meaningful ways to bring people together to address these pressing issues. We maintain strong working relationships with Tribal Nations located throughout the country, many that seek a healthy ecosystem and want to build resilient communities, and we have strong partnerships with state, federal, and non-governmental organizations that share interests in resolving environmental crises. NARF proposes to broaden our work to increase coordination and capacity to assist Tribal Nations in protecting their Homelands in a strategic and thoughtful manner. The project, will, among other things: * Develop a coalition of partners that work in the field to coordinate and strategize ways to better protect Homelands. * Continue, and build our capacity, to litigate and participate in administrative actions to protect our Homelands. * Continue to work in collaboration with our current partners such as the NBSCRA Coalition, Tule River Indian Tribe, Bears Ears Intertribal Coalition, to continue our co-management work. * Continue to develop our Sacred Places Project Advisory Committee to seek to improve federal and state sacred place and environmental law and policy (e.g., religious freedom, trust obligations, environmental protections, law reformation, etc.). * Host convenings when appropriate. * Develop the next generation of advocates. - Native American Voting Rights Coalition The Native American Voting Rights Coalition (NAVRC) continues to stand at the forefront of challenging issues to native voters in the areas of voting rights and election protection. Our voting rights practice group and the Native American Voting Rights Coalition (NAVRC) we lead, is an ongoing success in addressing longstanding barriers and active efforts to diminish native voter participation in local, state, and federal elections. NARF and NAVRC (A coalition comprised of NARF, the National Congress of American Indians, the ACLU: Voting Rights Project, Fair Elections Center, Western Native Voice, and other voting rights orgs, advocates, in-house tribal attorneys, and other experts), spent 2024 actively working to increase access to the ballot box for Native Americans across the country. We met monthly to discuss ongoing barriers and solutions and established various working groups to address issues such as communications and strategy toward passage of the Native American Voting Rights Act (NAVRA). In May, nearly 50 NAVRC members, brought together and led by NARF, met on the Santa Ana Pueblo in New Mexico to collaborate and discuss GOTV strategy, pool resources, and document ongoing needs. On Election Day 2024, over 170 law students and attorney volunteers, trained by NARF and partners, monitored polling sites on or near reservations and pueblos across six states to provide election protection support for Native voters. As the first of its kind, the Native Vote Election Protection Project serves Indian Country at large and coordinates organizations, individuals, and tribal nations working to protect the native vote. Poll watchers and observers coordinated with NARF attorneys to staff call/command centers to document their experiences and observations, as well as to provide information and advice on ensuring their fair participation in the election. NAVRC Litigation - Litigation https://vote.narf.org/our-work/ At present, NARF has been successful in every litigation brought under the Voting Rights Practice Group. This remarkable record of success has required ongoing diligence, a long-term commitment to complex litigation, and the leveraging of strategic partnerships. Litigation remains at the heart of NARF's voter protection work, and NARF remains the voting practice trusted to defend Native interests across Indian Country. Important litigation wins in 2024 included: - Successfully defending ballot collection and same day voter registration in Montana (Western Native Voice et al v. Jacobsen) - Successfully increasing the types of proof of residential location accepted in Arizona so that Native Americans without mailing addresses on their homes could vote (Tohono O'odham Nation v. Brnovich) - Successfully increasing language assistance in Alaska (Toyukak v. Treadwell) - Increasing voter registration opportunities in South Dakota (Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Barnett) - NARF litigated to increase ballot cure provisions in Alaska throughout 2024 but that case is ongoing (Arctic Village Council et al v. Fenumaiai et al) Additionally, NARF continued its redistricting litigation following the first ever Fair Districting in Indian Country project. Building on its previous litigation wins, in 2024 NARF successfully defended and won a Native majority districts in North Dakota and continued to defend the Voting Rights Act from attacks on the ability for private plaintiffs to bring voting rights litigation. (Walen et al. v. Burgum et al.; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, et al. v. Michael Howe). NARF is currently drafting briefing for the Supreme Court to defend its litigation wins in Montana and North Dakota. (Western Native Voice et al v. Jacobsen; Walen et al. v. Burgum et al.) |
| Form 990, Part III, Line 4a | - Tribal Water Institute NARF continues to build and expand the Tribal Water Institute (TWI), a project to address the unique and often technically challenging water law issues of tribal communities. Vital resources are needed to address climate change, environmental management frameworks, varying water and water priority issues, and under-representation in management discussions and agreements will be addressed by this innovative approach to tribal water issues. The TWI will address the shortage of water law expertise across Indian Country, bolster educational efforts, and provide thoughtful leadership in advocating for tribal water rights. In early summer, NARF hired four TWI Legal Fellows, three for the Boulder office and one for the Alaska office. These fellows are working on all of NARF's water cases. We have formally accepted four new cases and an amicus opportunity under the TWI and we are considering additional cases as well as additional short-term (e.g., amicus party) prospects. Due to client confidentiality needs, these new cases and issues are noted generally below: * EPA CWA rule litigation defense, N.D. Federal District Court. * Representing Washington Tribe in FERC hydropower relicense process. * Representing non-federally recognized California Tribe on fishery and water issues. * Represent Utah Tribe on water rights protection issue. * Amicus on tribal jurisdiction over groundwater in riparian states. NARF has also been participating in many tribal conferences, webinars, and other collaborative opportunities to raise awareness of the TWI, to gain insight into tribal water priorities and build collaborations. Case Updates NARF is currently guided by five mission priorities which guides and directs our case selection committee as to the types of high impact issues that need to be addressed. This covers a broad base of practice areas under the umbrella of Federal Indian Law, but this summary will provide a handful of case examples to illustrate the types of cases that tribal nations need assistance with. - Bay Mills Indian Community and Enbridge Line 5 expansion NARF and Earthjustice jointly represent the Bay Mills Indian Community to fight a proposed oil pipeline tunnel, which threatens the Community's treaty rights, tribal fisheries, and the environment. The proposed tunnel would encapsulate oil giant Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. Bay Mills has a long-standing and critical interest in the waters of the Great Lakes, the Straits of Mackinac, and the surrounding region. As one of the signatories to the 1836 Treaty of Washington, which ceded nearly 14 million acres to the United States for the creation of the State of Michigan, Bay Mills reserved the right to fish, hunt, and gather throughout the territory - including in the Great Lakes and the Straits of Mackinac. Furthermore, the area has deep cultural, religious, and economic significance to the Community. On August 12, 2020, a Michigan Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted Bay Mills Indian Community the right to intervene in an ongoing contested case process pending before the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC). The MPSC is evaluating Enbridge's permit application to build a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac, and relocate a new segment of its Line 5 pipeline. After many years of litigation and multiple hearings, on December 1, 2023, the MPSC issued an order approving Enbridge's permit application. Bay Mills, along with other Tribal intervenors, appealed the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Briefing is complete and oral argument took place on January 13, 2025. We are awaiting the decision. - State of Idaho, et al. v. EPA NARF, Kanji & Katzen P.L.L.C., and Earthjustice are co-counseling to represent twelve Tribal Nations in a lawsuit that a dozen states brought against the EPA challenging amendments to Clean Water Act regulations. The case, Idaho, et al. v. EPA, is a challenge to EPA's Tribal Reserved Rights Rule, a revision and addition to Clean Water Act regulations that requires states to account for aquatic-based Tribal reserved rights and water uses when setting water quality standards. The rule applies nationwide. The rule is intended to create a consistent approach for states to employ to incorporate Tribal rights when states develop water quality standards. The states allege EPA has overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act and that the agency cannot force the states to recognize Tribal rights, a job the states argue is exclusively federal. In mid-June, the states moved for a preliminary injunction to stay the implementation of the rule. The court did not rule on the motion and we completed summary judgement briefing in late January and are awaiting a hearing date.. The Tribal parties intervening as defendants include the Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Quinault Indian Nation, Bay Mills Indian Community, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Red Lake Nation, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, and the Sokaogon Chippewa Community. - Bears Ears National Monument For several years, the Bears Ears Inter Tribal Coalition, a consortium of five sovereign Indian nations (Hopi, Navajo, Uintah & Ouray Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, and Zuni) has worked to protect Bears Ears in Utah, one of America's most significant unprotected cultural landscapes. The Bears Ears region contains at least 100,000 archaeological sites, some dated back to 12,000 BCE, and is still critical to many tribes today for spiritual and hunting and gathering purposes. After years of advocacy, prior administrations designated the Bears Ears region as a National Monument which was diminished by subsequent administrations. On October 8, 2021, President Biden issued a proclamation restoring the Bears Ears National Monument to its original size, plus some additional acreage. On August 24, 2022, the State of Utah filed suit against President Biden. The state is arguing that President Biden abused his authority in creating Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante in numerous ways and that the monuments are far too large to protect the historic and scientific objects the Antiquities Act was meant to protect. The United States District Court of the District of Utah granted motions to dismiss the cases challenging the Bears Ears National Monument Designation. The State and mining companies have appealed that decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Tenth Circuit heard oral argument on September 26, 2024, in Boulder, Colorado, and NARF argued on behalf of the Tribal Nations. - Western Native Voice v. Jacobsen On May 17, 2021, NARF filed this case on behalf of four tribes challenging a Montana state law that prevents ballot collection and removes Election Day registration. HB 176 attempted to end Election Day registration which reservation voters have relied upon to cast votes in Montana since 2005. The other law attempted to block organized ballot collection on rural reservations (HB 530), despite the thirteenth district court ruling unconstitutional a similar anti-ballot collection law in Western Native Voice v. Stapleton which NARF brought and won in 2020. These laws show an ongoing pattern of anti-Native election-related legislation in the state. On September 30, 2022, following a two-week trial, the District Court issued an order in Plaintiff's favor on all counts. The District Court also found evidence of racial discrimination given this pattern of denying access to Native Americans. NARF and the ACLU represent GOTV organizations. The case has been consolidated with a similar case brought by the Democratic party and youth groups that also challenged a ban on student ID's. The District Court also found the ban on student ID's unconstitutional. The State filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court. In late March 2024 the Montana Supreme Court upheld our District Court win. In June 2024, the State filed a notice of appeal to the US Supreme Court, in an unprecedented move and on August 26, filed a cert petition. We filed our response in mid-December 2024. |
| Form 990, Part III, Line 4a | - Walen v. Burgum On March 30, 2022, the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation (MHA) and individual Native American voters filed a motion with the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota to intervene in Walen et al. v. Burgum et al. This is a lawsuit brought by two individuals seeking to eliminate the majority-Native state legislative subdistrict encompassing the Fort Berthold reservation in North Dakota. The tribal government and Native voters seek to defend the subdistrict, which ensures MHA tribal members have an equal opportunity to elect a candidate that represents their interests to the North Dakota State House. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction last year, and the State of North Dakota and MHA Nation opposed. The three-judge panel denied the motion, and the election was allowed to proceed, which resulted in the MHA Nation's district for the first time being represented by an MHA tribal member. On November 2, 2023, the three-judge panel granted MHA Nation's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case and vacating the trial. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the tribal government and Native voters have moved to dismiss the appeal. On January 13, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled summarily in our favor. That brought the case to the end on the merits, though we anticipate pursuing attorney's fees. We co-counsel with Campaign Legal Center and Bryan Sells. This redistricting case was a critical victory in ensuring that the tribe's interests would be adequately represented at the state level. - NAGPRA Repatriation Cases NARF has succeeded in assisting Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate and Spirit Lake Nation to bring the remains of two of their children, Amos LaFromboise and Edward Upright, back to their tribal homelands from the Carlisle Barracks Post Cemetery ("Carlisle Cemetery"). This was accomplished pursuant to a first-of-its-kind, written and signed agreement with the Army, which was negotiated between the Tribes and the Army in arms-length, government-to government negotiations. While the Tribes initially sought to have the boys repatriated pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ("NAGPRA"), the Tribes ultimately decided to, without waiving their NAGPRA rights, negotiate a general, government-to-government agreement for disinterment and return of the boys. The Tribes viewed this option as preferable once it became apparent the Army was willing to negotiate a plan for the disinterment and return of the boys that would engage the Tribes and the Army in a government-to-government relationship and facilitate meaningful negotiation of terms. NARF is continuing to work with the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska to repatriate two of its children, Edward Hensley and Samuel Gilbert, from the Carlisle Cemetery. NARF is working with the Big Fire Law & Policy Center in representing the Tribe. In October 2023, the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska requested the repatriation of Samuel's and Edward's remains pursuant to NAGPRA. On December 7, 2023, the Army refused to comply with the law and denied Winnebago's request. On January 17, 2024, NARF, its co-counsel at Cultural Heritage Partners, and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska's general counsel, Danelle Smith, filed a federal lawsuit against the United States Army ("Army") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia seeking the repatriation of the remains of Samuel Gilbert and Edward Hensley from the Carlisle Cemetery pursuant to NAGPRA. Through its lawsuit, Winnebago seeks to enforce its plainly apparent rights under NAGPRA. However, the battle to enforce NAGPRA repatriation at Carlisle also symbolizes a broader effort to obtain justice and healing for all Tribal Nations impacted by the cultural and literal genocide carried out by federal Indian boarding schools. On May 3, 2024, the Army filed a motion to dismiss Winnebago's lawsuit. In their motion, the Army argued that NAGPRA is not applicable to the Native American human remains buried at Carlisle Cemetery and that applying NAGPRA at Carlisle would dishonor the Native American children buried there. On July 12, 2024, NARF argued the motion to dismiss at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) in Alexandria, Virginia. On August 20, 2024, the EDvA granted the Army's motion to dismiss. On October 21, 2024, Winnebago filed its notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit). Winnebago's opening brief was due in early 2025. - Haaland v. Brackeen/Indian Child Welfare Case In the past decade, anti-Tribal interests have engaged in serial federal court litigation challenging the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) with the goal of undermining ICWA and tribal sovereignty. The most potentially consequential case was Haaland v. Brackeen (formerly Brackeen v. Zinke and Brackeen v. Bernardt). In early October 2018, Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found that ICWA is unconstitutional on the grounds that (1) violated the Equal Protection Clause as an unconstitutional "race-based" statute, (2) inserted the federal government into state affairs by "commandeering" state courts and agencies and thus violated the Tenth Amendment, and (3) impermissibly delegated federal powers to Tribes through Section 1915(c). The Cherokee Nation, Oneida Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, and Morongo Band of Mission Indians, who previously intervened in the case as defendants, asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to stay the decision, which it did, and initiated an appeal. On August 9, 2019, the Fifth Circuit overturned the District Court's opinion and affirmed the constitutionality of ICWA. However, the Individual Plaintiffs and the State Plaintiffs petitioned the Fifth Circuit to rehear the case en banc. The Fifth Circuit en banc decision generally upheld the authority of Congress to enact ICWA, and also held that ICWA does not operate on the basis of race. On September 3, 2021, the United States Department of Justice, intervening Tribal Nations (including the Navajo Nation), and Texas and individual Plaintiffs all formally asked the United States Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit's en banc decision. On February 28, 2022, the Supreme Court granted all four petitions and consolidated the case under Haaland v. Brackeen. Merits briefing took place the summer of 2022. NARF, along with our co-counsel at Dentons, filed a Tribal Amicus Brief on behalf of federally recognized Tribes and national and regional Native organizations. The Tribal Amicus Brief filed in August 2022 was signed by 497 Tribes and 62 Native organizations-to our knowledge, the largest show of Indian Country support for any brief before the United States Supreme Court. NARF also initiated the Tribal Supreme Court Project (TSCP) process for the case. The TSCP organized regular Brackeen Workgroup meetings and coordinated amicus support for the Tribal parties. The Tribal Amicus Brief was joined by an overwhelming show of support for ICWA: 21 pro-ICWA briefs were filed, representing the voices of many ICWA stakeholders, including parents, former foster youth, child welfare professionals, medical professionals, legal scholars, state governments, Members of Congress, and other officials. This avalanche of support-much of which referenced ICWA being the "gold standard" for child welfare practices-dwarfed the voices in opposition. Oral argument was heard on November 9, 2022. On June 15, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision, a full-throated, 7-2 opinion affirming the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The majority opinion was written by Justice Barrett, and it soundly rejected the Petitioners' arguments that Congress lacked the authority to pass ICWA or that, through ICWA, Congress exerted unconstitutional control over States. Justice Barrett's opinion also rejected the non-Indian individual and state Petitioners' equal protection and nondelegation arguments on the grounds that these challengers did not have standing to raise those arguments. |
| Form 990, Part III, Line 4a | In short: Tribes won on every issue that had been appealed. Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion, which was partially joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, in which he delved more deeply into the history behind ICWA, explaining that ICWA "did not emerge from a vacuum. It came as a direct response to the mass removal of Indian children from their families during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s by state officials and private parties." In addition, Justice Gorsuch noted that while Congress has broad power to legislate with respect to Indian affairs, the Constitution also recognizes Tribes' inherent sovereignty and promises Tribes "sovereignty for as long as they wish to keep it." NARF was pleased to assist in this resounding effort to protect Native children as well as the inherent sovereignty of tribal nations. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 15 Line 15a & 15b | REVIEW OF CEO AND TOP MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL COMPENSATION: AN EXTENSIVE SALARY SURVEY IS PERFORMED FOR ALL POSITIONS IN THE SUMMER OF EVERY EVEN YEAR IN WHICH CURRENT SALARIES ARE COMPARED TO MARKET SURVEY DATA OBTAINED FROM A VARIETY OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEY SOURCES. THIS INFORMATION IS THEN SUBMITTED TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR REVIEW AND THEN DISCUSSED AND APPROVED DURING AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING. MINUTES OF THE MEETING ARE TAKEN FOR SUBSTANTIATION OF THE DELIBERATION AND DECISION. THIS PROCEDURE WAS LAST PERFORMED IN 2024. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 11b Review of form 990 by governing body | PROCESS TO REVIEW THE FORM 990: THE FORM 990 IS PREPARED BY THIRD PARTY PREPARERS. THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER THOROUGHLY REVIEWS THE FORM 990 AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE PROVIDED WITH COPIES OF THE FORM 990 PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE IRS. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 12c Conflict of interest policy | PROCESS FOR MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY: BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS, AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL STAFF ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ANUALLY (BY JANUARY 15 OF EACH YEAR). DISCLOSURE AND DETERMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (PCI) AT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS LEVEL IS DISCLOSED TO THE BOARD CHAIR (IF THE BOARD CHAIR IS THE ONE WITH PCI, THEN TO THE VICE-CHAIR), WHICH IS THEN BROUGHT TO THE FULL BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION. BOARD MEMBERS WITH PCI SHALL BE ABSENT FROM THE BOARD'S DISCUSSION AND DECISION. EMPLOYEES WITH PCI SHALL GO TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ED) (IF ED HAS A PCI, THEN TO THE BOARD CHAIR). THE MATTER WILL THEN GO TO CORPORATE OFFICERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 19 Required documents available to the public | EXPLAIN WHY 1023/1024, 990, OR 990-T IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC: FORM 1023 WAS FILED BEFORE JULY 15, 1987 AND A COPY WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME. DESCRIBE HOW DOCUMENTS ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE AND UPON REQUEST. REQUESTS (WITH A VALID BUSINESS PURPOSE) FOR THE MANAGING DOCUMENTS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY WILL BE CONSIDERED. |
| Form 990, Part VIII, Line 1e | GOVERNMENT GRANTS: THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS GOVERNMENT GRANTS ON LINE 1(E) INCLUDES $1,247,850 OF CONTRIBUTIONS REVENUE FROM APPROXIMATELY 20 TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS. |
| Software ID: | 23017437 |
| Software Version: | 2023v6.0 |