Interesting case and petition, though I would not have described the Minnesota jurisdictional rule as “aparteid.”
Davis v. Minnesota Cert Petition
Lower court decision here.
Questions presented:
Has the State of Minnesota infringed upon the right to tribal self-government of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe?
Is the assertion of state civil regulatory authority in this matter preempted under Public Law 280 exceptions?
There certainly is a sense of confusion about the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and the applicability of PL 280 across MCT reservations in the Minnesota courts. The Minn. SCT seemed to be saying that a MCT band had no real interest in the prosecution of a member of another MCT band, which is wholly baloney (like that?).
Turtle Talk 
Yes, “wholly baloney.” As a Dakota, I am even concerned about the prosecution of a Minnesota Chippewa Tribal member, LOL.
I suspect the apartheid comment was a play on the anti-treaty rights groups that describe any semblance of sovereignty as an affront to civil rights, which many of them or their historical antecedents opposed in the 1960s. I think the more serious question here is if the state of Minnesota is attempting to facilitate the dissolution of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Also, why is there no organized tribal attempt to push for an Oliphant “fix,” as even Amnesty International recommended in a recent report on acts of sexual violence on reservations, the vast majority of which are committed by non-Natives?